Data privacy enforcement trends in-house legal can’t ignore

Data protection enforcement in the UK is shifting – not loudly, but decisively. For years, compliance has been assessed on the strength of documentation: the policy existed, the DPIA was completed, the contract was signed. But that era is ending. Regulators are no longer asking whether an organisation has a framework, but whether it can evidence control in practice. This is a key distinction.

For general counsel (GCs) and senior in-house lawyers, this marks an important shift. Backed by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), UK regulators are scrutinising not just whether a privacy framework exists, but whether it operates effectively, consistently and demonstrably across the organisation.

For in‑house leaders, the implication is clear: privacy must now sit within the organisation’s core governance architecture, not alongside it.

The real question for in‑house legal is this:

If the ICO conducted an unannounced audit tomorrow, could you evidence control in practice, not just on paper?

Data privacy frameworks must now withstand close scrutiny across AI, cyber security, marketing technology, HR surveillance and cross‑border transfers.

This article explores the enforcement patterns shaping data privacy strategy in 2026 and the practical steps GCs should prioritise.

From paper compliance to evidence-based accountability

The direction of travel is clear, the benchmark for compliance is shifting towards:

• Live operational controls, not static policies
• Audit‑ready record‑keeping, not theoretical procedures
• Demonstrable governance, not assurance by assertion.

What GCs should do

• Re‑engineer DPIAs into operational control documents linked to system architecture, vendor management and retention schedules
• Embed privacy into enterprise risk reporting with measurable KPIs (e.g. DSAR timeliness, AI risk assessments and vendor audits)
• Stress‑test documentation defensibility with litigation in mind, not just regulatory review.

DSARs: the underestimated enforcement lever

If AI governance is the future battleground, Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) are today’s pressure point.

DSARs remain one of the ICO’s most common complaints because they expose organisational weaknesses instantly. They frequently accompany or precede:

• Workplace grievances
• Whistleblowing matters
• Employment litigation or disputes
• Settlement negotiations.

Key risk themes for in‑house teams

• Volume and cost: searches now span email archives, Microsoft Teams chats, HR systems, shared drives and legacy systems
• Timing discipline: the one‑month deadline is strict; extensions must be reasoned and backed up
• Scope control: the right is to personal data, not entire documents. Over‑disclosure carries legal and security risk
• Privilege protection: assertions must be evidenced, consistent and robust
• Third‑party data: redaction remains a common error point.

Employee SARs, in particular, are often early indicators of disputes. DSAR governance is therefore risk governance.

For many in‑house teams, the challenge is not capability but capacity – especially where DSARs arise in a contentious context.

Meeting rising expectations with limited resource

In‑house legal teams face challenges from the sheer volume, velocity and technical breadth of today’s privacy obligations. Managing DSAR backlogs, breach notifications, AI assessments and daily operational queries can stretch even well‑resourced teams.

It’s increasingly common for in‑house functions to supplement capability with specialist external support – whether for peak periods, complex DSARs or ongoing compliance monitoring. Outsourced DPO and data protection support services can help maintain governance standards while enabling internal counsel to focus on high‑value strategic work.

Final thought

Privacy governance shouldn’t be seen as a reactive compliance obligation. It’s a strategic lever for trust, operational resilience and board credibility. Organisations that embed privacy into enterprise risk, cyber governance and AI deployment will withstand regulatory scrutiny and differentiate themselves in markets that are increasingly defined by digital trust.

Data protection enforcement is maturing and regulators want evidence of control. For GCs and senior in‑house leaders, this is an opportunity to strengthen organisational resilience, lead confidently on emerging technologies and position data protection as a strategic enabler, not an operational burden.

The question is no longer whether enforcement risk is evolving. It is whether your governance model has evolved with it.

Checklist

☐ Replace static privacy policies with live operational controls that are actively monitored

☐ Ensure all privacy documentation is audit-ready and can evidence control in practice

☐ Re-engineer DPIAs into operational documents so they form part of the internal system when onboarding a supplier (where DPIA is required)

☐ Establish clear processes for handling DSARs across email archives, Teams chats, HR systems, shared drives and legacy systems

☐ Train staff on DSAR scope control

☐ Flag employee DSARs as potential early indicators of disputes and treat them as risk-governance matters

☐ Ensure AI risk assessments are completed and monitored as part of governance reporting.