What’s Trending in Compliance? June 2026

Two women, one with glasses and one with curly hair, smiling and looking at a silver laptop. They are wearing lanyards and standing in a bright, modern building with large windows and plants in the background.

This blog was originally posted on 22nd June, 2026. Further regulatory developments may have occurred after publication. To keep up-to-date with the latest compliance news, sign up to our newsletter.

Adherent is the agentic AI product compliance platform that allows teams to anticipate and respond to ever-growing, ever-changing regulatory requirements. Adherent is trusted to manage compliance for billions of products across appliances, electronics, medical equipment, toys, cars, apparel, and more.

We help ensure global companies have the tools and information to build safe, sustainable products in a world full of change.

Below we break down some of the top compliance trends in June 2026 that are generating the most interest globally this month.

1. EU: Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on Packaging and Packaging Waste, Guidance Document, June 2026

On 5 June 2026, the Guidance Document for the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) was published.

The EU Commission has issued this guidance to interpret selected provisions of the PPWR in order to facilitate a uniform application of the Regulation. The Guidance is complemented by a set of FAQs which provide clarity on various issues in relation to the PPWR.

The guidance document is based on the established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of EU law, according to which, interpreting a provision requires consideration not only of its wording, but also of its context and the objectives pursued by the legal act of which it forms part.

The guidance document and the accompanying FAQs may be updated based on further stakeholder input and practical experience when the rules become applicable.

Further details regarding the PPWR will be proposed via implementing measures which are expected within the next 2-3 years.

2. Thailand: The Master Plan for Frequency Management (2026-2028), Draft Announcement, May 2026

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has approved, in principle, the draft Master Plan for Frequency Management (2026-2028) and is inviting stakeholders and the public to participate in the consultation process.

The revised plan updates Thailand’s frequency management framework to align with current national policies and future international developments, including the World Radiocommunication Conference 2027 (WRC-27) and upcoming Radio Regulations expected in 2028.

Comments are accepted until 6 July 2026.

3. EU: Classification of High-Risk AI Systems under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Draft Guidelines, May 2026

Issued in May 2026, these Guidelines aim to support providers and deployers of AI systems in assessing whether an AI system should be classified as high-risk, – facilitating the uniform application and effective enforcement of Article 6 AI Act.

The Guidelines outline the Commission’s interpretation of certain concepts relevant to classification and, pursuant to Article 6(5) of the AI Act, provide practical examples of AI systems that should or should not be considered high-risk. While the examples aim to reflect a broad range of sectors and use cases, they are illustrative rather than exhaustive and may be revised or expanded over time.

4. USA: FDA Finalization of Food Chemical Safety Post-Market Assessment Program and Reassessment of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and azodicarbonamide (ADA), Guidance Document, 2026

In August 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a Discussion Paper on the development of an enhanced systematic process for the post-market assessment of chemicals in food, including food additives, color additives, generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances, food contact substances, and chemicals that are present as contaminants. The paper included six questions for public consideration. FDA received over 70,000 comments which it reviewed to inform the thinking and assist in developing the process further.

This Discussion Paper presents the revised systematic process for the post-market assessment of chemicals in food, which incorporates stakeholder feedback. Major revisions that have been made are as follows:

FDA has added additional public engagement opportunities throughout the process, such as requesting information from the public prior to conducting most scientific assessments, making preliminary scientific assessments available for public comment, and plans to include public nomination of candidate food chemicals for post-market assessment.
FDA has also included the option to have preliminary scientific assessments peer reviewed in some cases.
The process has been streamlined by removing the split between focused and comprehensive assessments.
FDA has provided additional details regarding how they will receive and identify potential safety concerns during signal detection, triage signals to determine how they should be handled, and prioritize food chemicals for scientific assessments.

5. EU: Proposed Revision of the Cybersecurity Act, Briefing, June 2026

On 12 June 2026, the EU Commission published this briefing, providing an analysis of the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposed revision to the Cybersecurity Act and the proposal for a directive on simplification measures of the Directive (EU) 2022/2555 NIS2 Directive.

As per the briefing, the Impact Assessment effectively substantiates the need for a revision of the Cybersecurity Act. The Assessment considers four areas of intervention, each with three policy options considered in view of the specific objectives. Each policy option comprises measures addressing the identified problems, their drivers, and the related objectives. The Impact Assessment examines their economic, social, and environmental effects, includes an SME test, and systematically assesses impacts on competitiveness, while also highlighting several issues regarding the design of the options and the selection of the preferred package.

The briefing mentions that overall, the Impact Assessment presents its key methodological considerations and is transparent about evidence and analytical methods used. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ultimately issued a positive opinion with reservations on the Impact Assessment after initially identifying serious shortcomings and delivering a negative opinion. While most of the Board’s recommendations were addressed in the final assessment, some issues remain, and the proposals largely reflect the preferred option identified in the Impact Assessment.