Listen to this post

We are pleased to announce that the 2026 Global Data & Cyber Handbook is now available. This essential resource for businesses navigating the complex landscape of data and cyber regulation covers key data and cyber laws in over 50 jurisdictions.
 
The latest edition provides expanded overviews and comparative insights, offering a clear view of the increasingly intricate web of global data privacy and cybersecurity requirements. Our handbook examines key data and cyber regulatory developments impacting AI, the regulation of non‑personal data and company data, regulatory approaches and enforcement, available remedies and penalties, and restrictions on cross-border data transfers.
 
These insights come at a critical time. Our Global Disputes Forecast 2026 shows that cybersecurity and data privacy remain top concerns for in-house lawyers worldwide.

  • Cybersecurity and data privacy disputes are the top concern, with 43% of senior lawyers citing these as a risk for the coming year.
  • Similarly, cybersecurity and data privacy also stand out in the investigations landscape, with 55% of senior lawyers citing them as a significant risk in 2026.
  • Addressing the inevitability of cyber risk necessitates comprehensive legal guidance to ensure effective data protection and the implementation of sound AI governance frameworks.

Click here to access the handbook.

Listen to this post

As sweeping reforms converge to redefine workplace standards, employer responsibilities and employee rights, 2026 will require global businesses to balance rapidly evolving workplace regulation with the need to safeguard commercial interests.

Global regulation shifts in focus

Across the UK, the Americas and Europe, three key themes dominate: equity, openness and flexibility.

In the UK, the recent Employment Rights Act will broaden protection against unfair dismissal by reducing the qualifying period from two years to six months and removing the existing caps on compensation. These changes are anticipated from January 2027. The act will create other significant changes in 2026 and into 2027, including measures strengthening union influence; broadened thresholds for collective consultation and increased associated penalties for breaches; severe restrictions on imposing contractual variations, improved job security for zero- and low-hours workers; and broadened protections against harassment. In short, there will be a seismic shift to the compliance landscape. Employers will need to stay alert, as many of the finer details remain unknown.

The European Union is taking a proactive approach to strengthen its global competitiveness, aiming to boost innovation and economic growth. However, core worker protections are likely to remain strong with employers facing a wave of new regulation including the Pay Transparency Directive, the AI Act, and a revised framework for European Works Councils. Meanwhile, the Quality Jobs Roadmap forms part of the EU’s strategy to generate and maintain sustainable, high-quality employment. This potentially includes legislative measures to safeguard workers’ rights while adapting to ongoing technological, economic, and societal developments.

Recent employment law developments across Asia Pacific and Latin America also reflect a strong focus on worker protection, flexibility and fairness. Wage reforms are prominent, with South Korea and multiple Philippine regions announcing significant minimum wage increases, while Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill enhances rights and security for nontraditional workers. Broader labor rights are evolving through measures like South Korea’s Yellow Envelope Act, which expands union protections, while Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act seeks to ensure fair treatment for employees, including by providing greater protection against workplace discrimination. In Latin America, labor reforms are continuing, with Brazil seeking to strengthen equal pay compliance, Colombia modernizing its labor inspection regime, Mexico proposing reforms to strengthen workers’ rights and Argentina seeking to introduce sweeping changes to modernize labor relations while fostering competitiveness.

Overall, these changes underscore a regional trend toward safeguarding employee well-being, regulating digital work environments and ensuring equitable treatment across diverse employment models.

Continue Reading A Year of Workforce Transformation Prioritizing Fairness
Listen to this post

New York’s employment landscape is undergoing sweeping changes. Recent legislation introduces new compliance challenges across nearly every facet of workplace regulation—from pay transparency to leave entitlements, wage and hour rules, employment agreements, and more.

Employers will need to revise policies, contracts, and day-to-day practices to stay compliant and avoid costly missteps. The time to act is now: getting ahead of these updates will keep your organization protected and prepared. Our 2026 New York Employer Checklist spotlights the biggest changes for New York State and New York City and gives you clear, actionable steps to help you navigate 2026 with confidence.

Click here to download your copy.

Listen to this post

By February 1, 2026, employers must give California employees a notice explaining their constitutional rights when interacting with law enforcement at the workplace, their immigration rights and protections, their rights to workers’ compensation benefits, their rights to organize or engaged in concerted activity, and other “new legal developments.” And by March 30, 2026, employers must allow their California employees to name an emergency contact who the employer will notify if the employer learns that the employee is arrested or detained at work.

The new requirements are specified in the California Workplace Know Your Rights Act and template notices published by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Here’s what California employers need to know.

Annual Notice Requirement Begins February 1, 2026

Employers are required to send the mandated notice-a stand‑alone written document outlining several categories of worker rights-by February 1, 2026 (and annually thereafter) to current employees, and to each new employee upon hire.

The notice must contain a description of workers’ rights to:

  • Workers’ compensation benefits
  • 72-hour advance notice when federal immigration authorities plan to inspect an employee’s I‑9 forms or other employment records
  • Protection against unfair immigration-related practices against a person exercising protected rights
  • Organize a union or engage in concerted activity in the workplace
  • Constitutional protections when interacting with law enforcement at the workplace

The notice must also include any new legal developments the Labor Commissioner considers “material and necessary,” along with a list of the agencies responsible for enforcing the rights outlined in the notice—both of which appear in the DIR template notices.

Practical tip: For new hires, the notice should be included in new hire paperwork, along with the emergency contact form discussed below. 

Delivering the Notice in a Compliant Way

The notice must be sent by the employer’s regular communication method with employees, which may be (but is not limited to) personal service, email, or text message-as long as the notice can reasonably be anticipated to be received by the employee within one business day of sending.

Practical tip:

If employees do not have work email accounts (e.g., part-time or seasonal employees), consider including the notice to paychecks and posting the notice in the workplace, or scheduling a work meeting or training to hand out the notice in person. 

Providing the Notice in the Appropriate Language

The notice should be in the language normally used by the employer to communicate with employees. The Labor Commissioner is required to provide template notices in different languages, including English and Spanish (currently available), as well as Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi (templates in other languages coming soon, according to the DIR website). If the template notice is not available in the language normally used by the employer to communicate with employees, the notice may be provided in English.

Special Considerations for Unionized Workplaces

The above rules can be waived by a collective bargaining agreement, but if not, the employer must send the required notice to the collective bargaining representative for the employees annually by either electronic or regular mail. 

Using the DIR Templates or Creating Your Own Notice

Employers may use notices developed by the DIR (which will be updated annually according to the DIR’s website) or create their own as long as it covers the topics required by the new law.

Practical tip:

Employers considering using the DIR notices should closely review them as the DIR versions go beyond the notice required by the Act. If employers wish to create their own notices, consult with counsel to ensure the notices are legally compliant.

Three Year Recordkeeping Requirement

Employers must keep records showing compliance for three years, including the date that each written notice is provided or sent to employees.

New Emergency Contact Requirements for Arrest or Detention Situations

By March 30, 2026, employers must allow current employees to name an emergency contact and indicate whether that emergency contact should be notified if (i) the employee is arrested or detained on the worksite or (ii) the employee is arrested or detained off-site, but during work hours (if the employer knows about the arrest or detention). Employers must also allow new hires after March 30, 2026 the same opportunity to identify an emergency contact and determine whether the contact should be notified if the employee is arrested or detained.

Practical tip:

Employers should start this process well in advance of March 30, 2026 to allow employees time to name an emergency contact and indicate whether the emergency contact should be notified. Employers can update existing emergency contact forms to include a check box authorizing the company to contact the emergency contact if the employee is arrested or detained and send the emergency contact form with the required February 1 notice, asking employees to complete the new emergency contact form by March 30, 2026. Managers and supervisors should also be notified of the new requirements.

Risks of Noncompliance

The Act authorizes the Labor Commissioner to impose steep penalties (between $500-$10,000 per employee) for noncompliance. The Act also prohibits retaliation against employees who seek enforcement of the employer’s obligations under the Act.

With February 1 right around the corner, proactive planning is needed now to ease the burden on employers in complying with the Act and keeping their workforces properly informed.

Listen to this post

When a company acquires a startup, the founder often comes with the deal—bringing vision, energy, and deep product expertise. But hiring a founder post-transaction is rarely seamless, and companies should plan from deal inception for the possibility of a rocky breakup down the road. From cultural clashes to misaligned expectations, the risks of a turbulent split are real—and often overlooked amid the urgency of LOI negotiations. Below are five key employment law challenges companies face when bringing a founder into the fold—and ways to navigate the challenges before-and after-the relationship goes south.

1. Bringing the Founder on Board: Transitioning from Entrepreneur to Employee

When a company acquires a startup, retaining the founder as an employee can be a strategic necessity. Founders are frequently integral to getting the deal over the finish line. Their buy-in can make or break negotiations, and offering the founder a post-acquisition role signals respect for their vision while easing resistance. Founders bring invaluable institutional knowledge and serve as a cultural bridge, which reassures investors, helps retain key talent, and drives smooth integration and early-stage success.

However, shifting a founder from entrepreneur to employee often brings legal and operational challenges for all parties—along with psychological hurdles for founders, whose identities are deeply tied to the business.

  • Personal meets transactional: Founders may struggle to navigate the emotional weight of handing over control while also grasping the ramifications of the transaction—making it harder to align expectations with the acquirer. Even the most detailed LOI may fall short in practice, especially when working with founders who approach the deal differently than seasoned acquirers. Acquiring companies can help avoid potential issues by ensuring the founder is supported with strong legal and financial guidance, making it more likely the parties will be able to bridge any differences in priorities and move the deal forward smoothly.
  • Employment status: Founders may have previously operated as owners, consultants, or contractors, so stepping into a formal employee role can be unfamiliar, and can bring new (and sometimes unwelcome) requirements around reporting structure, accountability, and compliance. To avoid confusion by the founder-employee about their employment relationship with the company, avoid dangers of misclassification, and ensure the proper handling of tax, benefits, and compliance obligations, the acquirer should clearly explain and define the founder’s new role as an employee in employment contracts, onboarding materials, and all related HR documentation.
  • Role transition: Transitioning into a structured employee role can feel restrictive for founders: 
    • Founders are used to autonomy and broad decision-making authority and may struggle with operating in a structured corporate environment.
    • Founders often thrive in fast-moving, risk-tolerant environments where quick decisions drive progress. Transitioning to a larger organization’s more structured processes can be difficult, stymieing smooth integration.
    • The founder’s distinct vision and deep commitment to their product or company may not always align with the strategic direction of the acquiring firm, leading to hesitation by the founder around changes the acquirer seeks to implement.

To reduce the risk of founder friction during role transitioning, companies should align early on strategic goals, document all commitments clearly, and design an onboarding plan that respects the founder’s background while setting realistic expectations. Establishing clear guardrails from the outset can help to prevent misalignment and future disputes.

2. Negotiating Compensation: Motivating the Founder in Line with Company Strategy

The negotiation of compensation for a founder post-transaction is inherently complex. While acquiring companies are keen to ensure the founder remains engaged and incentivized post-transaction, the structure of compensation and benefits must also align with the acquirer’s broader compensation philosophy, governance standards, and budget limitations.

  • Equity and vesting: Founders usually want to stay engaged in the business they grew and developed. To keep founders engaged and aligned with the acquirer’s goals, companies need to offer incentives that truly resonate. A mix of rollover equity and a customized equity incentive package often does the trick, with many founders seeking stock options or restricted stock units in connection with the deal. But revisiting prior equity grants can raise sensitive issues around dilution and valuation. Navigating this terrain requires careful attention to securities laws, tax implications, and the structure of company equity plans.
  • Severance and retention: Founders may push for severance terms that go beyond market norms—especially around “good reason” and “change of control” clauses—which can trigger payouts if the founder resigns due to significant changes in role, compensation, or company ownership. While these provisions can help attract and retain top talent, companies must strike a careful balance between offering competitive incentives and preserving the company’s need for flexibility.
  • Non-standard benefits: Founders might negotiate for unique perks—like continued use of company assets, office space, or other non-cash benefits—that fall outside typical executive packages. Each request should be carefully vetted not only for legal compliance but also to ensure the perk is comparable to what other similarly situated leaders receive. Overly generous or inconsistent terms can create tension within leadership teams and raise concerns about governance.
  • Anticipating the exit: Companies should begin planning for a potential separation with the founder as early as compensation negotiations—if not sooner. Assume that if the relationship does not work out, termination will occur without cause, and recognize that such terminations typically carry significant costs in these transactions. Internally, companies should evaluate (i) whether they are comfortable with the financial obligations associated with a without-cause termination, (ii) how equity will be treated, and (iii) whether existing post-employment restrictions provide sufficient protection. Finally, document all decisions clearly to avoid misunderstandings later.
Continue Reading Putting Founders on the Payroll: 5 Post‑Acquisition Employment Law Challenges
Listen to this post

Our 2026 Looking Ahead Report explores the trends, developments, and emerging risks shaping financial services in the year ahead, covering topics like agentic AI in fintech, corporate fraud prevention, cybersecurity, workforce strategies, a regional spotlight on the Middle East and much more. Here is an excerpt:

Global workforce strategies for the financial sector

As financial institutions recalibrate their workforce strategies for 2026 and beyond, they face a rapidly shifting regulatory terrain shaped by geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and evolving societal expectations. 2025 has seen a marked acceleration in legal reforms and policy shifts across jurisdictions, with four key themes emerging at the forefront of employment and compliance planning. These trends are not isolated – they are interconnected, and they demand a proactive, globally attuned approach to workforce governance.

The Shifting DEI Landscape

While institutional diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and practices have been subject to more legal scrutiny in the US this year, other regions—particularly EMEA and parts of Asia—are deepening commitments and expanding regulatory requirements. Major US-based financial institutions have scaled back public commitments to DEI, rebranding or removing references to diversity figures and programs in corporate filings, amid heightened political scrutiny under the current US administration. In contrast, many financial institutions across EMEA remain committed to robust DEI frameworks. For example, the UK’s financial regulators have proposed regulatory standards to embed diversity and inclusion into governance structures. And in South Africa, financial and insurance activities is a sector specifically identified under new affirmative action targets now in force. This divergence underscores the need for multinational financial institutions to carefully navigate DEI policy and goals with regional nuance, balancing local regulatory pressures with global values and workforce expectations.

Employers, including those in the financial sector, are under pressure (from both employees and government authorities) to increase transparency, particularly on workforce composition and compensation. In Brazil, for example, equal pay enforcement has intensified, with hundreds of companies inspected in the last year. Some of the significant changes include the US, where certain states, including California, require gender pay reporting, and shareholder activism is driving pay equity disclosures. In the EU, the Pay Transparency Directive requires member states to implement legislation by June 2026, with gender pay gap reporting starting in June 2027. Key requirements include: mandatory pay range disclosure; banning salary history questions; and employee rights to pay information with an increased role overall for worker representatives.

Continue Reading What’s On the Radar for Financial Institutions in 2026?
Listen to this post

Illinois has entered a pivotal year for workplace regulation. Employers face a series of new requirements, with significant and wide-ranging changes—from paid lactation breaks and NICU leave to expanded whistleblower protections, stricter contract rules, and new obligations around AI use in hiring and employment decisions. These new laws will reshape policies on employment agreements, leave entitlements, workplace safety, immigration compliance, and more.

Our 2026 Illinois Checklist serves as a comprehensive guide to the most impactful changes facing Illinois employers. Organized by topic and with actionable items, the checklist equips your organization to stay compliant and competitive in the year ahead.

Click here to download your copy.

Listen to this post

On December 4, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes of two bills requiring annual pay reporting and pay analyses. These bills—requiring private employers to report pay data by race and gender and mandating a city-led pay equity study—are emblematic of a nationwide trend toward greater scrutiny of compensation practices.

As we dive into the new year, here’s what employers need to know about the new NYC reporting requirements, recent changes to pay data reporting requirements in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, and the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive.

While pay reporting laws focus on accountability and seek to enable regulatory oversight and systemic analysis of pay equity across organizations, pay transparency regulations emphasize visibility, aiming to enable applicants and employees to make informed decisions and reduce information asymmetry. A round-up of recent pay transparency developments is included.

New NYC Pay Data Reporting Requirements

New law (Int 0982-A) requires employers with 200 or more employees inclusive of full-time, part-time and temporary employees) in the city to file annual reports detailing employee race or ethnicity and gender information across certain job categories and different pay ranges. Although the pay-reporting requirements take effect immediately, employers are not required to submit information until the city creates a process for doing so, which we may not see until as late as 2028.

  • Reporting Details: The new reporting requirements are similar to requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (and similar to reporting requirements in California and Illinois). In 2017 and 2018, the EEOC previously called for employers to submit employees’ W-2 income information broken down by gender, race/ethnicity and job category (i.e., component 2 EEO-1 data), though the rules were rescinded during the first Trump administration. The new law requires the city agency overseeing this new initiative to include this component 2 EEO-1 data in the reporting requirements, but may also request additional data, such as information about employee gender identity or other demographics. Employers will not need to provide an employee’s personal information as part of the reports, but they will have the option to submit written remarks to provide explanations or context for the data in their submission. Additionally, employers may furnish data anonymously, but will required to submit a signed statement confirming that they provided accurate pay data.
Continue Reading From New York City to the European Union: Pay Equity Developments Multinational Employers Need to Know in 2026
Listen to this post

The Trump Administration recently announced wide-ranging immigration policy changes that directly impact most employer-sponsored visa holders. While each update may seem minor or only pertinent to specific cases, they amount to notable changes when viewed collectively. The latest developments highlight the critical importance of staying informed of immigration changes and reviewing internal practices to ensure immigration compliance. Below is a summary of changes most likely to impact companies and their visa-holding employees. 

1. H-1B visa stamping now requires social media vetting, causing significant delays and appointment cancellations in India

  • All H-1B and H-4 visa applicants are subject to mandatory social media vetting, requiring that applicants set their social media profiles to public. This is an expansion of the social media vetting announced earlier in the year for student visa applicants.
  • This change in policy does not impact USCIS filings and only applies to applicants for visa stamps at US Embassies or Consulates outside of the United States.
  • There have been widespread reports of H-1B visa appointments being cancelled and rescheduled due to the change in policy, particularly in India.

Key Takeaway   

Employers and employees should be prepared for H-1B and H-4 visa stamping to take longer due to this new process. Employers should know their visa population including H-1B (and H-4) employees who will travel for visa stamping given the possibility of cancellation and/or delay. Employers should have clear policy guidelines regarding remote work and consider contingency plans due to an employee’s extended absence abroad.  

Continue Reading US Immigration Update: What Employers Should Know About Immigration Changes in Q4
Listen to this post

This article was originally published by IAPP linked here.

When monitoring employees in the workplace in the U.S. and Canada, employers must be cognizant of their obligations under employment and data privacy laws. 

In the US, employers can mostly negate privacy expectations from developing in the workplace by providing clear notice of monitoring practices and which notice is required in certain states, such as New York. But under the California Consumer Privacy Act, data minimization requirements apply and monitoring practices must be justifiable as necessary and proportionate.

In Canada, employers are required to balance operational needs such as safety, security and productivity, with the privacy rights of their employees. Monitoring should be reasonable, proportionate and tied to a legitimate business purpose. Organizations must comply with applicable federal or provincial privacy legislation, which can include safeguarding any employee personal information collected, obtaining employee consent in certain circumstances, and providing notice to employees of monitoring practices. 

For federally regulated private-sector employers — such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies — employee monitoring is generally governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Provinces that have enacted privacy laws deemed “substantially similar” to PIPEDA are exempt from its collection, use and disclosure provisions under section 26(2)(b). Presently, only Alberta, British Columbia and Québec have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA.

US: A patchwork of requirements apply to employers

At the federal level in the U.S., employee monitoring is primarily governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, which permit monitoring for legitimate business purposes but impose strict limits on unauthorized interception and access to private communications. Further, employers must conduct all workplace monitoring and surveillance in compliance with federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws. And, all employers, even those with a nonunionized workforce, must comply with the National Labor Relations Act when conducting workplace monitoring and surveillance. 

Continue Reading Employee Monitoring in the US and Canada: What Employers Need to Know