In partnership with
Executive Summary
In the last two weeks, the story has been less about new AI “rules” and more about a simple enterprise reality: AI assistants are now sitting directly on top of sensitive data, business workflows, and user trust. The January Copilot “Reprompt” disclosure put that in sharp relief—showing how a single-click prompt-injection pathway can turn a productivity feature into a data governance event when boundaries, connectors, and enforcement aren’t designed for hostile inputs. Reporting indicates Microsoft addressed the issue in mid-January.
At the same time, regulators and standards bodies are moving from principle to proof. In the EU, the AI Office’s work on marking and labelling AI-generated content is now on a concrete drafting cadence aimed at supporting compliance ahead of Article 50 transparency obligations taking effect in August 2026. In the U.S., NIST’s Cyber AI Profile work signals that “AI governance” is being pulled into mainstream cybersecurity expectations—inventory, access control, monitoring, and incident response—rather than treated as a separate ethics track.
This issue uses the Copilot incident as the anchor case study and then translates it into governance moves that senior leadership can apply immediately: how to scope assistant data paths, where preventive controls matter most, and what evidence regulators and enterprise customers will increasingly expect. The incident analysis and action framework later in the newsletter go deeper on the failure mode and the specific control gaps it exposed.
Global Regulatory Updates
European Union — AI Act Transparency Moves Into a Build Schedule
The AI Office’s Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content now has a published drafting cadence and timeline.
The first draft was published December 17, 2025, followed by January 2026 working group meetings and workshops.
The timeline points to a second draft in March 2026 (TBC) and a final Code around May–June 2026.
The AI Office explicitly frames this as runway for compliance before Article 50 transparency rules take effect in August 2026 (marking/detectability by providers; disclosure obligations for deepfakes and certain public-interest publications by deployers).
Executive takeaway: Treat Article 50 readiness like an engineering program, not a comms exercise. The EU is moving from principle to implementation artifacts. Organizations shipping generative content, synthetic media, or public-facing AI output should build: (1) a marking/detectability approach for outputs, (2) disclosure UX and editorial workflows for deepfakes and public-interest content, and (3) evidence of how these controls operate in production.
United States — Standards-Led Convergence + State Timing Signal
Two U.S. signals matter this week: one standards-driven, one legislative timing.
NIST Cyber AI Profile (NIST IR 8596): public comment remains open through January 30, 2026. NIST also tied January activity to updates on SP 800-53 control overlays for securing AI systems.
Colorado timing clarity: SB 25B-004 extends the effective date of SB 24-205 requirements to June 30, 2026 (signed Aug 28, 2025).
Compliance implication: The “least regret” U.S. posture is to run AI systems through established cyber governance patterns (inventory, access control, monitoring, incident response), because that’s where NIST is landing—then layer in state-style impact assessment and consumer-facing notice mechanics where consequential decisions are involved.
Canada — Competition Enforcement Lens Tightens Around Algorithmic Pricing
Canada’s Competition Bureau published a “What We Heard” report (news release January 22, 2026) summarizing feedback from its algorithmic pricing consultation, noting more than 100 submissions and highlighting themes that include concerns about anticompetitive behavior and harms from lack of transparency.
Forward outlook: This is an enforcement-adjacent signal: “AI governance” in Canada is not just privacy. Where algorithms influence pricing, access, or consumer outcomes, expect scrutiny to focus on transparency, accountability, and the ability to explain controls—not the model architecture.
International Alignment Signal
ISO/IEC 42001 continues to function as a quiet forcing mechanism. It frames AI governance as an auditable management system—establish, implement, maintain, continually improve—rather than a one-time policy effort. Procurement and internal audit often adopt these management-system expectations before regulators do.
Strategic implication: Standardization is shrinking the space for “custom governance.” Organizations that can produce ISO-style evidence (roles, lifecycle controls, risk treatment, monitoring, continuous improvement) will be able to answer regulators and enterprise customers with the same artifact set.
What makes a great ad in 2026?
If you want to know the core principles of high-performing advertising in 2026, join our educational webinar with award-winning creative strategist Babak Behrad and Neurons CEO & Founder Thomas Z. Ramsøy.
They’ll show you how standout campaigns capture attention, build memory, and anchor brands. You’ll walk away with clear, practical rules to apply to your next campaign.
You’ll learn how to:
Apply neuroscientific principles to every campaign
Build powerful branding moments into your ads
Make your ads feel relevant to your audience
Master the art of high-impact campaigns in an era of AI-generated noise and declining attention spans
Incident Analysis: Microsoft Copilot “Reprompt” Prompt Injection
In mid-January, researchers described “Reprompt,” a single-click method to trigger prompt injection and enable data exfiltration in Microsoft Copilot via crafted links. Reporting indicates Microsoft patched the issue on January 13, 2026.
Primary Risk Drivers
Trust boundaries collapse inside productivity AI
Assistants live in the same neighborhood as sensitive enterprise content. When the assistant can be driven by untrusted inputs (links, documents, embedded instructions), the assistant becomes a potential “policy bypass” path unless compensating controls reliably gate what can be retrieved and returned.One-click changes the risk math
A single-user action reduces the window for prevention. It shifts the burden away from training and toward technical guardrails: connector defaults, prompt filtering, and output controls.Product naming hides control complexity
“Copilot” is treated like one product. In practice it is multiple experiences with different data paths and enforcement points. Governance fails when control assumptions don’t match reality.
Quantified impact: Public reporting does not provide credible figures on affected organizations or losses. The actionable takeaway is structural: assistants compress time-to-exposure when they can be steered by untrusted content.
Executive Action Framework
This incident translates cleanly into enterprise governance moves that a CRO or CISO can forward internally.
Start by assigning a single accountable owner for “enterprise AI assistants” as a risk surface (security + privacy + compliance). The common failure mode is fragmented ownership: one team buys it, another configures it, a third tries to govern it after rollout.
Next, shift the control discussion from “acceptable use” to preventive enforcement. Prompt injection is not a user-behavior problem alone. The enterprise posture should default to: least-privilege access to data sources, explicit connector approvals, strong logging, and controls that reduce what can be returned when sensitive content is involved.
Finally, make assistants evidence-ready. The question leadership will face is simple: Which assistants can touch regulated data, through which paths, under what conditions, with what enforcement and monitoring? The program needs to answer that quickly and defensibly.
Solution Spotlight: Microsoft Purview DLP for MS 365 Copilot
Overview
Microsoft Purview DLP includes a policy location designed to protect interactions with Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat, including restricting Copilot from processing sensitive content in prompts and excluding labeled content from being used in responses.
Core capabilities
Purview can prevent Copilot from responding to prompts that contain specified sensitive information types, and can block Copilot from processing files/emails with specified sensitivity labels (with stated coverage constraints).
Relevance to AI governance
In a Reprompt-style scenario, DLP is a compensating control that can reduce blast radius by limiting what can be processed or returned—assuming classification and policies are mature. It does not replace fixing instruction-boundary failures, but it helps enforce enterprise data rules at the assistant interface.
Best fit
Organizations already operating Microsoft 365 with established sensitivity labeling and DLP governance. Without that foundation, DLP becomes either overly permissive or overly disruptive.
Strategic Framework
Control proportionality is the most defensible governance concept for 2026. Controls should scale with: (1) decision impact, (2) data sensitivity, and (3) autonomy/connectors. A chat assistant with no connectors and low-sensitivity data can be governed lightly. An assistant with access to regulated data stores, external browsing, or action-taking capabilities must be governed like a high-impact system: explicit ownership, tested controls, logging, and documented assurance.
The direction of travel is visible in the EU’s move toward implementable transparency expectations and NIST’s move toward security-first AI profiles.
Operation Playbook: AI Assistant Control Sheet
A practical artifact that scales: an AI Assistant Control Sheet.
Define each assistant experience as an entry (not “Copilot” as a monolith). For each entry, document where it runs, who uses it, what it can access, and what connectors are enabled by default vs by exception. Then attach the enforcement layer: labeling/DLP rules, access controls, and output restrictions. Add logging fields: what is recorded, where it is reviewed, and who can disable risky configurations. Finally, require quarterly testing focused on indirect prompt injection and data exfiltration patterns, with remediation tracked to closure.
This turns “assistant risk” from a debate into an auditable object.
Closing Perspective
The market is past the stage where “AI governance” can be a policy binder. The EU is publishing implementation timelines. NIST is pulling AI into mainstream cybersecurity governance. And assistant incidents are demonstrating how quickly a productivity feature can turn into a data governance event.
The strategic advantage in 2026 will come from teams that can show control maturity with reusable, auditable artifacts—before a regulator, customer, or incident forces the issue.
Recommended immediate actions
Assign a single accountable executive owner for the enterprise AI assistant portfolio (security + privacy + compliance outcomes).
Build an assistant inventory that distinguishes experiences, connectors, and data paths—complete the top three in production first.
Implement preventive guardrails: default-deny connectors, least-privilege access to sensitive stores, and mandatory logging for assistant actions.
Apply and test DLP/sensitivity-label restrictions for Copilot where applicable, focusing first on regulated data classes.
Establish a quarterly prompt-injection assurance routine for any assistant that touches sensitive repositories; track remediation like other security findings.
Treat EU Article 50 transparency readiness as a 2026 milestone with a concrete plan (marking, disclosure UX, editorial responsibility evidence).
If operating in scope of Colorado’s AI law, use the timing window (effective June 30, 2026) to align assessments and disclosures with broader AI governance controls rather than creating a one-off compliance track.
— Editor, The AI Governance Brief