Patchwork privacy laws and slow, outdated consent models are no match for accelerating AI, neurotech, and surveillance. Regulation expands unevenly, leaving gaps in neural data, profiling, and encryption. Static consent remains inadequate. Without unified, dynamic, privacy-by-design frameworks, organizations risk falling behind and exposing users to unchecked data exploitation.
Emerging technologies – from hyperpersonalized AI to braincomputer interfaces – are transforming how we live, work, and interact. But as innovation accelerates, we must ask whether our data privacy regulations and consent tools are keeping pace? Evidence suggests they often struggle to match the velocity of emerging tech.
Unlike the European Union’s overarching GDPR, the US lacks a national privacy law. Instead, it relies on a patchwork of state-level regulations. In 2024 alone, seven new state comprehensive privacy laws were enacted, with four taking effect immediately and 11 more slated for 2025 and 2026. By then, nearly half the U.S. population will be covered by state-level comprehensive privacy law.
This fragmentation introduces complexity. With revision across states, businesses face compliance headaches and rising operational costs. Consent models also vary. Some states demand opt-in for sensitive activities, others still use optout by default, confusing both businesses and consumers.
Globally, the momentum continues. As of early 2024, 137 countries (around 79% of the world’s population) are covered by some form of national privacy law. The EU maintains its leadership with the GDPR and the newly adopted AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive AI regulation.
Meanwhile, sectors such as biometrics, children’s data, and health data have stronger protections in sector-specific regulations. For example, Maryland’s new law includes strict prohibitions on selling minors' data, while Minnesota grants individuals the right to question AI-driven profiling and request explanations.
AI-powered tools, like hyper-personalized assistants or AI-integrated browsers, promise efficiency and tailored experiences. Yet they increasingly leverage detailed behavioral tracking. Unlike conventional cookies, these systems monitor deep patterns and personal data, often packaged in “black box” profiles that are hard to audit.
Despite GDPR and CCPA enforcing baseline privacy standards, innovations move faster than policy. There’s a growing call for privacy-first AI design, transparency, and ongoing governance to preserve trust.
Perhaps most startling is the emergence of braincomputer interfaces (BCIs). US senators recently urged the FTC to investigate how neurotech firms handle brain data, which often lacks opt-out provisions, and isn’t protected under HIPAA. Even as some states like California and Colorado include neural data in consumer protections, comprehensive safeguards remain absent.
In Europe, a proposed regulation to scan every user message for child sexual abuse content has ignited backlash. While the intent is noble, cybersecurity experts warn that enabling such surveillance would undermine encryption and could open the door to broader, unwarranted monitoring.
In many domains, consent remains static. You tick a box once and move on, often without fully understanding how your data may be used over time.
Contrast this with dynamic consent — a concept increasingly used in medical research. It provides a digital interface allowing individuals to update their consent choices, receive real-time information on data usage, and engage interactively with ongoing projects. This model fosters transparency and trust but remains the exception, not the norm, outside of biomedicine.
For voice activated systems (like Alexa), verbal consent seems user-friendly but can easily undermine true informed consent. Academic research found that experts urge better design: consent should be minimized, optout friendly, and firmly grounded in informed principles, not just UI convenience.
The Access Partnership argues for Data Regulations 2.0, built explicitly to address emerging technologies — a more agile, tech-responsive framework than legacy laws.
Likewise, organizations should embrace privacy-by-design, embedding governance, risk assessment, and human-in-the-loop oversight into AI systems from the ground up.
Guidance like the EDPB’s report on LLMs offers practical privacy controls, triggering impact assessments, managing data flows, and embedding mitigation throughout AI’s life cycle.
Regulations like NIS2 and DORA emphasize cyber resilience, incident reporting, and third-party risk, extending the remit of privacy teams into broader security governance.
Inside organizations, privacy must no longer be siloed. Instead, cross-team collaboration among privacy, IT, marketing, and legal is essential to managing data responsibly.
AI governance frameworks, consent management systems, and automated compliance tooling (like those designed to manage risk and audit trails) are increasingly vital.
Emerging technologies challenge the limits of current privacy models. Black-box AI, brain data, and mass surveillance are some of the ways tech outpaces existing laws.
To manage this race, regulatory frameworks are improving, but uneven. The EU and some US states are advancing, yet no unified global system exists to address AI, neurotech, and surveillance. Also, consent mechanisms remain largely static. Truly dynamic, user-centric models are still niche.
How should organizations move forward? Risk mitigation needs broader adoption along with forward-looking regulations. Privacy-by-design should be introduced across the board, consent standards should be harmonized, and governance and consent tooling should become priorities.
Ultimately, while organizations can adopt solutions and best practices but keeping up with the emerging technologies propelling us forward is a constant challenge requiring ongoing vigilance.
©2025 CookieHub ehf.
