Too little, too late: The inadequacy of reactive antitrust enforcement in technology markets - Brookings

“Our glioblastoma recurrence atlas is now out in its final form in Cell Reports by Cell Press! Glioblastomas almost always come back after radiotherapy, often right inside the irradiated field.

A firsthand look at how AI governance, autonomous trading, cybersecurity, and digital-asset fraud are shifting enforcement risk toward the decisions firms make and the records they preserve. Last week, I joined Ariella Guardi, Robert Musiala and Luke Tenery, with Charu Chandrasekhar moderating, at Securities Enforcement Forum Central in Chicago for a discussion on cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, digital assets and emerging technology enforcement. The discussion reflected a shift in the enforcement landscape. Regulators and market participants are no longer dealing only with whether new technologies fit within existing regulatory categories. Increasingly, the harder questions concern what happens when firms actually deploy those technologies at scale.

According to a new report, 99.7% of IT and security leaders surveyed by identity security company Delinea said their organization has a formal policy governing what data AI tools and agents are permitted to access. Yet only about 51% said AI access is checked against those policies in real time. Perhaps more worrying is that only 19% said their organization could detect in real time when an agent last accessed data outside its intended scope. That disconnect is at the center of Delinea's fall 2026 Identity Security Report, "The AI Enforcement Gap," which suggests companies have made quick progress establishing AI governance but have not necessarily built the technical controls needed to enforce it.