Nicole Beranek Zanon

From October 2026, a paradigm shift will come into effect in Switzerland: for the first time, a central transparency register for beneficial owners of legal entities will be established. Companies will be obliged to disclose their ownership and control structures to the authorities. At the same time, advisers – in particular solicitors and notaries – will be subject to the Money Laundering Act when carrying out certain structuring activities. The reforms are primarily intended to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, but they entail significant new compliance obligations for the companies and advisers concerned. What does this mean in practical terms for board members, managing directors and those in advisory professions? And where do the new liability and compliance risks lie? We provide an overview.

The Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) has published its 33rd annual report, thereby setting out important guidelines for future data protection practice in Switzerland. The report highlights the issues currently occupying the supervisory authority and the areas in which companies can expect to face increased scrutiny under data protection law in future. Particular focus is placed on artificial intelligence, international data processing and the practical implementation of the revised Data Protection Act. Companies should therefore view the annual report not merely as a retrospective, but as a guide to their data protection compliance.

Two recent criminal cases from Geneva and Zurich show that enforcement of the new Data Protection Act in Switzerland is becoming stricter, and that breaches of the Act’s data protection requirements may also result in criminal sanctions. Whilst the Geneva High Court clarified the limits of criminal liability for data security breaches in its judgement ACPR/239/2025 of 26 March, the Zurich City Magistrates’ Court, in penalty order No. 2023-066-252 of 10 June 2024 – as far as can be ascertained, for the first time – a fine for failing to provide sufficient information. The decisions demonstrate that the criminal law provisions of the DSG can indeed be highly relevant in practice.

Organisations that develop, deploy or use AI systems, and any national laws regulating such use, shall ensure that, to the extent reasonable given the circumstances and the state of the art of the technology, such use is transparent and that the decision outcomes of the AI system are explainable.

A survey of middle powers’ converging drivers and mitigation strategies to address vulnerabilities relating to technological sovereignty.

This year’s Copyright Conference organised by the Swiss Forum for Communications Law, which will take place on 16 June 2026 in Bern, is themed ‘From Copyright to Media Regulation?’ and will examine the increasing regulatory density in the digital environment. Whilst traditional copyright law has historically focused on exclusive rights and individual enforcement, current developments show a clear shift towards specific obligations of conduct and action for digital intermediaries.

Microsoft positions Foundry as a controlled environment for the use of large language models within its own Azure infrastructure. The key message is clear: data remains isolated, is not shared, and is not used for training purposes. However, a closer examination of the contractual terms reveals a more nuanced picture.

Artificial intelligence promises efficiency and innovation, but it can also distort competition. The Competition Commission makes it clear that algorithmic pricing and data-driven market power will be scrutinised more closely in future.