This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
You’ve worked extensively across sectors like AI, social media, e-commerce, education, and gaming. What early experiences shaped your decision to specialize in technology and regulatory law?
I think the best way to describe it is that a series of decisions brought me to where I am today. My love of political science as a subject sent me down the path of reading law, and my desire to be the prime minister of India one day (among many other professions – across creative and public interest fields) brought me to public policy. Tech was always fascinating to me – one example that comes to mind is how I’d watch product launches and service upgrades, and visualise the journey from the present moment to a future with Irona-esque devices or Tony Stark’s Jarvis assistant. But I was also acutely cognisant of the need for an inclusive regulatory discourse surrounding technology, one that ensures a seat at the table for a cross-section of diverse perspectives.
My early mentors played a formative role in equipping me with the tools to understand this space and build my own voice. While tech public policy was still in its experimental stages as a profession in India, I worked on complex questions surrounding intermediary liability and safe harbour, net neutrality, and privacy. The perfect storm of innovation, impact, and uncertainty reinforced for me the need for thoughtful, future-facing tech regulations. And I realised that I loved the interpretation of law, but I was even more excited about understanding the answers to the underlying questions – of intent, of timing, of form, and of substance – and within that context ensuring that the perspective and agency of the individual remains front and centre.
How did your LL.M in Public International Law from LSE broaden your legal perspective, especially in navigating global tech policy?
LSE gave me a bird’s-eye view of how legal norms are constructed, contested, and negotiated across jurisdictions. It trained me to think beyond domestic legislation and consider global frameworks, power dynamics, and geopolitical context – skills that are essential in tech policy today. Studying international humanitarian and human rights law also deepened my own appreciation of “harms” and what they might mean in the digital world. It taught me to ask not just “is this legal,” but “is this just,” especially when advising on emerging technologies. That normative framing continues to guide my work across borders today.
What I am most grateful for, however, is how LSE opened up a whole new and vibrant world – of people, experiences, and contexts – that I may have read about in the past but got to actually immerse myself in-person. It impressed upon me just how numerous and diverse perspectives on a single issue can be, and how essential it is to make space for them in building the policy ecosystem of tomorrow.
Having worked with top law firms and major companies, what inspired you to launch Data & Co, and what is your vision for the future?
When I thought of my next steps, the answer was quite straightforward – I wanted to focus on the subject matter that I love – of public policy as it applies to the technology sector. Granted that this is work I’ve done for the past 11 years, but I wanted to now thoughtfully and intentionally design my focus. I’m building Data & Co to be a trusted advisor across the spectrum of regulatory stakeholders – businesses, governments, special interest groups alike – as well be a thought leader on emerging policy challenges particularly for fast moving regulatory topics like in AI, digital payments, privacy, online safety, and consumer interest.
Candidly, Data & Co is my professional passion project. I feel inspired to strengthen evidence-based thoughtful policy research on some of these issues, while also collaborating closely with stakeholders for cross-pollination of ideas and building a more resilient and sustainable policy ecosystem. I launched Data & Co to bridge legal nuance with public policy strategy, and to make the approach to compliance not just a checkbox, but a tool for responsible innovation.
A big part of my vision is to invite young minds to this work – new ideas always spark novel answers to complex problems, and that is invigorating. So at Data & Co we welcome young people to share their thinking, and be involved and productive members of the policy discourse.
Given your experience advising both Indian and international clients, how do you navigate evolving regulatory frameworks particularly in the area of data privacy when legal standards are still emerging and often ambiguous?
I treat ambiguity as an opportunity for proactive strategy rather than passive compliance. Navigating emerging frameworks means staying grounded in first principles – think accountability, data principal rights, and purpose limitation for instance. It also means scenario-planning for multiple outcomes, building privacy-by-design muscle early, and engaging constructively with regulators. My approach is typically layered – assess risk, weigh policy direction, and align with business goals, which includes maintaining the interest of the individual customer. I also find it helpful to reiterate that in navigating privacy, building and maintaining trust with data principals is crucial, and using that as a yardstick when exploring emerging regulations can be quite instructive.
With laws like India’s DPDP Act and the growing global focus on AI governance, what guiding principles should companies follow to ensure ethical innovation and long-term regulatory compliance?
I’d go back to the first principles I just mentioned. Transparency, user agency, privacy-by-design, and fairness should be embedded into product and data practices, not retrofitted after the fact. The global AI and privacy regulatory landscape may differ in specifics, but the overall direction is often informed by similar imperatives – that of protecting consumer interest. This means inculcating practices of explainability in clear and simple language, i.e. how and why personal data is collected, and how decisions on/ from/ for that personal data are made.
I also recommend, as a good hygiene practice, to build internal accountability structures. In doing so, cross-functional collaboration and clear documentation go a long way – in both ensuring compliance and building user trust.
You have helped clients through unexpected regulatory shifts. Can you share a specific example of managing a challenging case in relation to global technology regulations?
As public policy professionals, our goal is to work towards limiting instances of unexpected regulatory changes, and contribute constructively to the dialogue. However, every now and then there are surprises that we help our clients navigate. My goal, as the first step, is to understand what is happening, why, who it is intended for, and how it impacts my client. To do all of this, I work closely with cross-functional partners internally within my client organisation and simultaneously with regulatory stakeholders as well as peers in the industry to gain their perspectives.
In situations like these, I personally find clear prioritisation to be incredibly helpful – what is business-critical versus good-to-have. I think it is also essential to manage expectations with honesty, and partner productively with internal and external stakeholders. And I also use these opportunities to remind myself that agility is as important as knowledge.
As a woman leading at the intersection of law, tech, and policy fields traditionally dominated by men, what key challenges and leadership lessons have shaped you, and what advice would you have for others facing similar paths?
One lesson that’s stayed with me is that while credibility is earned, confidence must often be self-issued. Early on, I had to make my peace with being the only woman, or the youngest voice, in many rooms, and to back myself even when others didn’t because of my gender or age. I advocated for inclusion and diversity in these rooms. I learned to speak up not just when I was certain, but also when I was curious. Leading now, I try to build spaces that are collaborative, inclusive, and intellectually honest. I learn from people with shared and different experiences alike, and acknowledge struggles – of the glass ceiling, of imposter syndrome, of credit-theft – that we’ve all been through.
My advice? Be audacious in your ideas and generous with your platform, especially for others trying to find theirs. The only way we’ll succeed in making the profession more inclusive is we intentionally make space for diverse perspectives.
Balancing a demanding legal practice with personal life can be challenging. How do you manage the pressures of a multifaceted career while maintaining your well-being and finding time for reflection?
I believe that as human beings we are the sum total of all our experiences, which includes work and leisure. I am wildly protective of both my boundaries and my ambition.
I have a mentor who used to tell me that outside of breaks or holidays from work, it is really important for us to find small moments of joy on a daily basis. On some days, that means logging off to cuddle with my dog (Data, my firm’s mascot), and on other days, it’s about saying no to a project that doesn’t align with my purpose. I also recognise that it is not pragmatic to believe that I can achieve mathematical balance on each day, and so I listen closely to my body and mind. I travel, read and keep myself creatively stimulated through writing, dance or art, which then translates into a fresh mind for work. The converse is also true – my creative pursuits are often informed by work imperatives!
And beyond that, just super tactically, I approach my time with structure and planning. I find blocking time on my calendar very helpful to visualise how I am spending my day/ year, and I remain flexible about tweaking it on the go. My goal, ultimately, is less about balance, and more about (upon reflection) my time as having brought me joy.
Get in touch with Kriti Trehan –
