GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation
|European Union regulation|
|Title||Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive)|
|Made by||European Parliament and Council of the European Union|
|Journal reference||L119, 4 May 2016, p. 1–88|
|Date made||14 April 2016|
|Implementation date||25 May 2018|
|Commission proposal||COM/2012/010 final – 2012/0010 (COD)|
|Replaces||Data Protection Directive|
The General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individual citizens of the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). It also addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas. The GDPR aims primarily to give control to individuals over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU. Superseding the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, the regulation contains provisions and requirements related to the processing of personal data of individuals (formally called data subjects in the GDPR) inside the EEA, and applies to any enterprise established in the EEA or—regardless of its location and the data subjects’ citizenship—that is processing the personal information of data subjects inside the EEA.
Project Management Templates for both Agile and Waterfall project planning and tracking.
Controllers of personal data must put in place appropriate technical and organizational measures to implement the data protection principles. Business processes that handle personal data must be designed and built with consideration of the principles and provide safeguards to protect data (for example, using pseudonymization or full anonymization where appropriate), and use the highest-possible privacy settings by default, so that the datasets are not publicly available without explicit, informed consent, and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information (which must be stored separately). No personal data may be processed unless this processing is done under a lawful basis specified by the regulation, or unless the data controller or processor has received an unambiguous and individualized affirmation of consent from the data subject. The data subject has the right to revoke this consent at any time.
A processor of personal data must clearly disclose any data collection, declare the lawful basis and purpose for data processing, and state how long data is being retained and if it is being shared with any third parties or outside of the EEA. Data subjects have the right to request a portable copy of the data collected by a processor in a common format, and the right to have their data erased under certain circumstances. Public authorities, and businesses whose core activities consist of regular or systematic processing of personal data, are required to employ a data protection officer (DPO), who is responsible for managing compliance with the GDPR. Businesses must report any data breaches within 72 hours if they have an adverse effect on user privacy. In some cases, violators of the GDPR may be fined up to €20 million or up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater.
The GDPR was adopted on 14 April 2016, and became enforceable beginning 25 May 2018. As the GDPR is a regulation, not a directive, it is directly binding and applicable, but does provide flexibility for certain aspects of the regulation to be adjusted by individual member states.
The GDPR 2016 has eleven chapters, concerning general provisions, principles, rights of the data subject, duties of data controllers or processors, transfers of personal data to third countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member states, remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights, and miscellaneous final provisions.
I General provisions
The regulation applies if the data controller (an organisation that collects data from EU residents), or processor (an organisation that processes data on behalf of a data controller like cloud service providers), or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. Under certain circumstances, the regulation also applies to organisations based outside the EU if they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the EU. The regulation does not apply to the processing of data by a person for a “purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity.” (Recital 18)
According to the European Commission, “Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual. The precise definitions of terms such as “personal data”, “processing”, “data subject”, “controller” and “processor”, are stated in Article 4 of the Regulation.
The regulation does not purport to apply to the processing of personal data for national security activities or law enforcement of the EU; however, industry groups concerned about facing a potential conflict of laws have questioned whether Article 48 of the GDPR could be invoked to seek to prevent a data controller subject to a third country’s laws from complying with a legal order from that country’s law enforcement, judicial, or national security authorities to disclose to such authorities the personal data of an EU person, regardless of whether the data resides in or out of the EU. Article 48 states that any judgement of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may not be recognised or enforceable in any manner unless based on an international agreement, like a mutual legal assistance treaty in force between the requesting third (non-EU) country and the EU or a member state. The data protection reform package also includes a separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector that provides rules on personal data exchanges at national, European, and international levels.
A single set of rules will apply to all EU member states. Each member state will establish an independent supervisory authority (SA) to hear and investigate complaints, sanction administrative offences, etc. SAs in each member state will co-operate with other SAs, providing mutual assistance and organising joint operations. If a business has multiple establishments in the EU, it will have a single SA as its “lead authority”, based on the location of its “main establishment” where the main processing activities take place. The lead authority will act as a “one-stop shop” to supervise all the processing activities of that business throughout the EU (Articles 46–55 of the GDPR). A European Data Protection Board (EDPB) will co-ordinate the SAs. EDPB will replace the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. There are exceptions for data processed in an employment context or in national security that still might be subject to individual country regulations (Articles 2(2)(a) and 88 of the GDPR).
Unless a data subject has provided informed consent to data processing for one or more purposes, personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis to do so. Article 6 states the lawful purposes are:
- (a) If the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data;
- (b) To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject, or for tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering into a contract;
- (c) To comply with a data controller’s legal obligations;
- (d) To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another individual;
- (e) To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority;
- (f) For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party, unless these interests are overridden by interests of the data subject or her or his rights according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children).
If informed consent is used as the lawful basis for processing, consent must have been explicit for data collected and each purpose data is used for (Article 7; defined in Article 4). Consent must be a specific, freely-given, plainly-worded, and unambiguous affirmation given by the data subject; an online form which has consent options structured as an opt-out selected by default is a violation of the GDPR, as the consent is not unambiguously affirmed by the user. In addition, multiple types of processing may not be “bundled” together into a single affirmation prompt, as this is not specific to each use of data, and the individual permissions are not freely-given. (Recital 32)
Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. (Article 7(3)) A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service. (Article 7(4)) Consent for children, defined in the regulation as being less than 16 years old (although with the option for member states to individually make it as low as 13 years old (Article 8(1)), must be given by the child’s parent or custodian, and verifiable (Article 8).
If consent to processing was already provided under the Data Protection Directive, a data controller does not have to re-obtain consent if the processing is documented and obtained in compliance with the GDPR’s requirements (Recital 171).
III Rights of the data subject
1 Transparency and modalities
Article 12 requires that the data controller provides information to the ‘data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child.’
2 Information and Access
The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. It gives citizens the right to access their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed. A data controller must provide, upon request, an overview of the categories of data that are being processed (Article 15(1)(b)) as well as a copy of the actual data (Article 15(3)); furthermore, the data controller has to inform the data subject on details about the processing, such as the purposes of the processing (Article 15(1)(a)), with whom the data is shared (Article 15(1)(c)), and how it acquired the data (Article 15(1)(g)).
A data subject must be able to transfer personal data from one electronic processing system to and into another, without being prevented from doing so by the data controller. Data that has been sufficiently anonymised is excluded, but data that has been only de-identified but remains possible to link to the individual in question, such as by providing the relevant identifier, is not. In practice however providing such identifiers can be challenging, such as in the case of Apple’s Siri, where voice and transcript data is stored with a personal identifier which the manufacturer restricts access to, or in online behavioural targeting, which relies heavily on device fingerprints that can be challenging to capture, send and verify.
Both data being ‘provided’ by the data subject and data being ‘observed’, such as about behaviour, are included. In addition, the data must be provided by the controller in a structured and commonly used standard electronic format. The right to data portability is provided by Article 20 of the GDPR.
3 Rectification and erasure
A right to be forgotten was replaced by a more limited right of erasure in the version of the GDPR that was adopted by the European Parliament in March 2014. Article 17 provides that the data subject has the right to request erasure of personal data related to them on any one of a number of grounds within 30 days, including noncompliance with Article 6(1) (lawfulness) that includes a case (f) if the legitimate interests of the controller are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject, which require protection of personal data (see also Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González).
4 Right to object and automated decisions
Article 21 of the GDPR allows an individual to object to processing personal information for marketing, sales, or non-service related purposes. This means you must allow an individual the right to stop or prevent you from processing their personal data.
There are some instances where this objection does not apply. For example if:
- Legal or official authority is being carried out
- ‘Legitimate interest’ where the organisation needs to process data in order to provide you with a service you signed up for.
- A task being carried out for public interest.
GDPR is also clear that you must inform individuals of their right to object from the first communication you have with them. This should be clear and separate from any other information you are providing and give them their options for how best to object to the processing of your data.
There are instances you can refuse a request, in the circumstances that the objection request is ‘manifestly unfounded’ or ‘excessive’ therefore each case of objection should be looked at individually.
IV Controller and processor
To be able to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR, the data controller must implement measures which meet the principles of data protection by design and by default. Article 25 requires data protection measures to be designed into the development of business processes for products and services. Such measures include pseudonymising personal data, by the controller, as soon as possible (Recital 78). It is the responsibility and the liability of the data controller to implement effective measures and be able to demonstrate the compliance of processing activities even if the processing is carried out by a data processor on behalf of the controller (Recital 74).
When data is collected, data subjects must be clearly informed about the extent of data collection, the legal basis for processing of personal data, how long data is retained, if data is being transferred to a third-party and/or outside the EU, and any automated decision-making that is made on a solely algorithmic basis. Data subjects must be informed of their privacy rights under the GDPR, including their right to revoke consent to data processing at any time, their right to view their personal data and access an overview of how it is being processed, their right to obtain a portable copy of the stored data, the right to erasure of data under certain circumstances, the right to contest any automated decision-making that was made on a solely algorithmic basis, and the right to file complaints with a Data Protection Authority. As such, the data subject must also be provided with contact details for the data controller and their designated data protection officer, where applicable.
Data protection impact assessments (Article 35) have to be conducted when specific risks occur to the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Risk assessment and mitigation is required and prior approval of the data protection authorities is required for high risks.
Article 25 requires data protection to be designed into the development of business processes for products and services. Privacy settings must therefore be set at a high level by default, and technical and procedural measures should be taken by the controller to make sure that the processing, throughout the whole processing lifecycle, complies with the regulation. Controllers should also implement mechanisms to ensure that personal data is not processed unless necessary for each specific purpose.
A report by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security elaborates on what needs to be done to achieve privacy and data protection by default. It specifies that encryption and decryption operations must be carried out locally, not by remote service, because both keys and data must remain in the power of the data owner if any privacy is to be achieved. The report specifies that outsourced data storage on remote clouds is practical and relatively safe if only the data owner, not the cloud service, holds the decryption keys.
The GDPR refers to pseudonymisation as a process that is required when data is stored (as an alternative to the other option of complete data anonymisation) to transform personal data in such a way that the resulting data cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information. An example is encryption, which renders the original data unintelligible and the process cannot be reversed without access to the correct decryption key. The GDPR requires for the additional information (such as the decryption key) to be kept separately from the pseudonymised data.
Another example of pseudonymisation is tokenisation, which is a non-mathematical approach to protecting data at rest that replaces sensitive data with non-sensitive substitutes, referred to as tokens. While the tokens have no extrinsic or exploitable meaning or value, they allow for specific data to be fully or partially visible for processing and analytics while sensitive information is kept hidden. Tokenisation does not alter the type or length of data, which means it can be processed by legacy systems such as databases that may be sensitive to data length and type. This also requires much fewer computational resources to process and less storage space in databases than traditionally-encrypted data.
Pseudonymisation is a privacy-enhancing technology and is recommended to reduce the risks to the concerned data subjects and also to help controllers and processors to meet their data protection obligations (Recital 28).
2 Records of processing activities
Records of processing activities must be maintained that include purposes of the processing, categories involved and envisaged time limits. The records must be made available to the supervisory authority on request (Article 30).
3 Security of personal data
Article 33 states the data controller is under a legal obligation to notify the supervisory authority without undue delay unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of the individuals. There is a maximum of 72 hours after becoming aware of the data breach to make the report. Individuals have to be notified if a high risk of an adverse impact is determined (Article 34). In addition, the data processor will have to notify the controller without undue delay after becoming aware of a personal data breach (Article 33).
However, the notice to data subjects is not required if the data controller has implemented appropriate technical and organisational protection measures that render the personal data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it, such as encryption (Article 34).
4 Data protection officer
Article 37 requires appointment of a data protection officer. If processing is carried out by a public authority (except for courts or independent judicial authorities when acting in their judicial capacity), or if processing operations involve regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale, or if processing on a large scale of special categories of data and personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences (Articles 9 and Article 10,) a data protection officer (DPO)—a person with expert knowledge of data protection law and practices—must be designated to assist the controller or processor in monitoring their internal compliance with the Regulation.
A designated DPO can be a current member of staff of a controller or processor, or the role can be outsourced to an external person or agency through a service contract. In any case, the processing body must make sure that there is no conflict of interest in other roles or interests that a DPO may hold. The contact details for the DPO must be published by the processing organisation (for example, in a privacy notice) and registered with the supervisory authority.
The DPO is similar to a compliance officer and is also expected to be proficient at managing IT processes, data security (including dealing with cyberattacks) and other critical business continuity issues associated with the holding and processing of personal and sensitive data. The skill set required stretches beyond understanding legal compliance with data protection laws and regulations, the DPO must maintain a living data inventory of all data collected and stored on behalf of the organization. More details on the function and the role of data protection officer were given on 13 December 2016 (revised 5 April 2017) in a guideline document.
Organisations based outside the EU must also appoint an EU-based person as a representative and point of contact for their GDPR obligations (Article 27). This is a distinct role from a DPO, although there is overlap in responsibilities that suggest that this role can also be held by the designated DPO.
An EU Representative is an EU-based designee or “ambassador” of a non-EU establishment (Data Controller or Data Processor) that is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the EU. A natural (individual) or moral (corporation) person can play the role of an EU Representative. The EU Representative is the Controller’s or Processor’s contact person vis-à-vis European privacy supervisors and data subjects, in all matters relating to processing, to ensure compliance with this GDPR. The purpose of such representation is to enable the European data protection supervisory authorities to ensure compliance with the GDPR, by being able to control or supervise the activities of the non-EU establishments that are subject to the GDPR, through their respective representatives in the EU.
However, a non-EU establishment is exempted from designating an EU Representative when the processing is only occasional and does not include, on a large scale, processing of special categories of data as referred to in Article 9(1) GDPR or processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10 GDPR, and such processing is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, taking into account the nature, context, scope and purposes of the processing. Non-EU public authorities and bodies are equally exempted.
If a foreign company that is subject to the GDPR refuses to designate an EU Representative as required, then the former is infringing the GDPR and runs the risk of being imposed an administrative fine of up to ten million Euros or up to 2 percent of a company’s total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Ignorance of the GDPR would not be an excuse, and the intentional or negligent (willful blindness) character of the infringement (failure to designate an EU Representative) may rather constitute aggravating factors.
Just like Heads of State designate their ambassadors with letters of credence, the non-EU establishment must issue a duly signed document (letter of accreditation) designating a given individual or company as its EU Representative. The said designation can only be given in writing (GDPR Art. 27(1)}.
VIII Remedies, liability and penalties
Besides the definitions as a criminal offence according to national law following Article 83 GDPR the following sanctions can be imposed:
- a warning in writing in cases of first and non-intentional noncompliance
- regular periodic data protection audits
- a fine up to €10 million or up to 2% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater, if there has been an infringement of the following provisions: (Article 83, Paragraph 4)
- the obligations of the controller and the processor pursuant to Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39, and 42 and 43
- the obligations of the certification body pursuant to Articles 42 and 43
- the obligations of the monitoring body pursuant to Article 41(4)
- a fine up to €20 million or up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater, if there has been an infringement of the following provisions: (Article 83, Paragraph 5 & 6)
- the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7, and 9
- the data subjects’ rights pursuant to Articles 12 to 222
- the transfers of personal data to a recipient in a third country or an international organisation pursuant to Articles 44 to 49
- any obligations pursuant to member state law adopted under Chapter IX
- noncompliance with an order or a temporary or definitive limitation on processing or the suspension of data flows by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 58(2) or failure to provide access in violation of Article 58(1)
The following cases are not covered by the regulation:
- Lawful interception, national security, military, police, justice
- Statistical and scientific analysis
- Deceased persons are subject to national legislation
- There is a dedicated law on employer-employee relationships
- Processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity
Conversely, an entity or more precisely an “enterprise” has to be engaged in “economic activity” to be covered by the GDPR. Economic activity is defined broadly under European Union competition law.
The proposal for the new regulation gave rise to much discussion and controversy. Thousands of amendments were proposed.
The area of GDPR consent has a number of implications for businesses who record calls as a matter of practice. A typical disclaimer is not considered sufficient to gain assumed consent to record calls. Additionally, when recording has commenced, should the caller withdraw their consent, then the agent receiving the call must be able to stop a previously started recording and ensure the recording does not get stored.
IT professionals expect that compliance with the GDPR will require additional investment overall: over 80 percent of those surveyed expected GDPR-related spending to be at least US$100,000. The concerns were echoed in a report commissioned by the law firm Baker & McKenzie that found that “around 70 percent of respondents believe that organizations will need to invest additional budget/effort to comply with the consent, data mapping and cross-border data transfer requirements under the GDPR.” The total cost for EU companies is estimated at around €200 billion while for US companies the estimate is for $41.7 billion. It has been argued that smaller businesses and startup companies might not have the financial resources to adequately comply with the GDPR, unlike the larger international technology firms (such as Facebook and Google) that the regulation is ostensibly meant to target first and foremost. A lack of knowledge and understanding of the regulations has also been a concern in the lead-up to its adoption. A counter-argument to this has been that companies were made aware of these changes two years prior to them coming into effect and, therefore, should have had enough time to prepare.
The regulations, including whether an enterprise must have a data protection officer, have been criticized for potential administrative burden and unclear compliance requirements. Although data minimisation is a requirement, with pseudonymisation being one of the possible means, the regulation provide no guidance on how or what constitutes an effective data de-identification scheme, with a grey area on what would be considered as inadequate pseudonymisation subject to Section 5 enforcement actions. There is also concern regarding the implementation of the GDPR in blockchain systems, as the transparent and fixed record of blockchain transactions contradicts the very nature of the GDPR. Many media outlets have commented on the introduction of a “right to explanation” of algorithmic decisions, but legal scholars have since argued that the existence of such a right is highly unclear without judicial tests and is limited at best.
The GDPR has garnered support from businesses who regard it as an opportunity to improve their data management. Mark Zuckerberg has also called it a “very positive step for the Internet”, and has called for GDPR-style laws to be adopted in the US. Consumer rights groups such as The European Consumer Organisation are among the most vocal proponents of the legislation. Other supporters have attributed its passage to the whistleblower Edward Snowden. Free software advocate Richard Stallman has praised some aspects of the GDPR but called for additional safeguards to prevent technology companies from “manufacturing consent”.
Academic experts who participated in the formulation of the GDPR wrote that the law, “is the most consequential regulatory development in information policy in a generation. The GDPR brings personal data into a complex and protective regulatory regime. That said, the ideas contained within the GDPR are not entirely European, nor new. The GDPR’s protections can be found – albeit in weaker, less prescriptive forms – in U.S. privacy laws and in Federal Trade Commission settlements with companies.
Despite having had at least two years to prepare and do so, many companies and websites changed their privacy policies and features worldwide directly prior to GDPR’s implementation, and customarily provided email and other notifications discussing these changes. This was criticised for resulting in a fatiguing number of communications, while experts noted that some reminder emails incorrectly asserted that new consent for data processing had to be obtained for when the GDPR took effect (any previously-obtained consent to processing is valid as long as it met the regulation’s requirements). Phishing scams also emerged using falsified versions of GDPR-related emails, and it was also argued that some GDPR notice emails may have actually been sent in violation of anti-spam laws. In March 2019, a provider of compliance software found that many websites operated by EU member state governments contained embedded tracking from ad technology providers.
Research indicates that approximately 25% of software vulnerabilities have GDPR implications. Since Article 33 emphasizes breaches, not bugs, security experts advise companies to invest in processes and capabilities to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, including Coordinated vulnerability disclosure processes.
On the effective date, some international websites began to block EU users entirely (including Instapaper, Unroll.me, and Tribune Publishing-owned newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times) or redirect them to stripped-down versions of their services (in the case of National Public Radio and USA Today) with limited functionality and/or no advertising, in order to remove their liabilities. Some companies, such as Klout, and several online video games, ceased operations entirely to coincide with its implementation, citing the GDPR as a burden on their continued operations, especially due to the business model of the former. Sales volume of online behavioural advertising placements in Europe fell 25–40% on 25 May 2018.
Facebook and subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram, as well as Google LLC (targeting Android), were immediately sued by Max Schrems‘s non-profit NOYB just hours after midnight on 25 May 2018, for their use of “forced consent”. Schrems asserts that both companies violated Article 7(4) by not presenting opt-ins for data processing consent on an individualized basis, and requiring users to consent to all data processing activities (including those not strictly necessary) or be forbidden from using the services.
On April 3, 2019, Google were fined a record £44m for failing to comply with GDPR. CNIL, France’s data protection office, found that Google had been guilty of breaking EU privacy rules by failing to acquire adequate consent from its users regarding the data used for personalised advertising. The regulator also found that Google didn’t provide clear and easily accessible information to consumers regarding data collection and retention.
Mass adoption of these new privacy standards by international companies have been cited as an example of the “Brussels effect“, a phenomenon wherein European laws and regulations are used as a global baseline due to their gravitas.
The U.S. state of California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act on 28 June 2018, taking effect 1 January 2020: it grants rights to transparency and control over the collection of personal information by companies in a similar means to GDPR. Critics have argued that such laws need to be implemented at the federal level to be effective, as a collection of state-level laws would have varying standards that would complicate compliance.
On 9 April 2019, U.S. senators Deb Fischer and Mark Warner introduced the Deceptive Experiences To Online Users Reduction (DETOUR) Act, which would make it unlawful for U.S. technology companies with over 100 million monthly active users to use deceptive and ambiguous user interface patterns when seeking consent to collect personal information.
- 25 January 2012: The proposal for the GDPR was released.
- 21 October 2013: The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) had its orientation vote.
- 15 December 2015: Negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission (Formal Trilogue meeting) resulted in a joint proposal.
- 17 December 2015: The European Parliament’s LIBE Committee voted for the negotiations between the three parties.
- 8 April 2016: Adoption by the Council of the European Union. The only member state voting against was Austria, which argued that the level of data protection in some respects falls short compared to the 1995 directive.
- 14 April 2016: Adoption by the European Parliament.
- 24 May 2016: The regulation entered into force, 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
- 25 May 2018: Its provisions became directly applicable in all member states, two years after the regulations enter into force.
- 20 July 2018: the GDPR became valid in the EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway), after the EEA Joint Committee and the three countries agreed to follow the regulation.
EU Digital Single Market
The EU Digital Single Market strategy relates to “digital economy” activities related to businesses and people in the EU. As part of the strategy, the GDPR and the NIS Directive all apply from 25 May 2018. The proposed ePrivacy Regulation was also planned to be applicable from 25 May 2018, but will be delayed for several months. The eIDAS Regulation is also part of the strategy.
United Kingdom implementation
It’s true that with the United Kingdom scheduled to leave the European Union, the UK granted royal assent to the Data Protection Act 2018 on 23 May 2018, which contains equivalent regulations and protections. When the UK leaves the EU, it will become a third country for the purposes of the transfer of personal data outside the EU. This may require an “adequacy decision” by the European Commission on the suitability of the UK’s data protection framework, or other appropriate safeguards that may allow such transfers to take place. (Chapter V). It is currently (August 2018) the UK Government’s view that a ‘legally-binding data protection agreement’ between the EU and the UK would be more appropriate than an ‘adequacy finding’. Such an agreement would include the UK Information Commissioner taking part in the ‘one stop shop’ mechanism and having a seat on the European Data Protection Board.
In April 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued a proposed code of practice for social networking services when used by minors, enforceable under GDPR, which also includes restrictions on like and “streak” mechanisms in order to discourage social media addiction, and use of this data for processing interests.
The American Bar Association published in 2018 that “The GDPR applies extraterritorially.”
The EU Commission, on the basis of Article 45 of GDPR, has determined that the following countries offer an adequate level of data protection.
- Canada (for commercial entities)
- Faroe Islands
- Isle of Man
- New Zealand
- United States of America (refer to the Privacy Shield)
- Cybercrime Convention, of the European Council
- Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
- Do Not Track legislation
- Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002
- Privacy Impact Assessment
- ePrivacy Regulation (European Union)
- Refer GDPR article 4(18): ‘enterprise’ means a natural or legal person engaged in an economic activity, irrespective of its legal form, including partnerships or associations regularly engaged in an economic activity.
- “Presidency of the Council: “Compromise text. Several partial general approaches have been instrumental in converging views in Council on the proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation in its entirety. The text on the Regulation which the Presidency submits for approval as a General Approach appears in annex,” 201 pages, 11 June 2015, PDF”. Archived from the original on 25 December 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
- Article 3(2): This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
- “EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex”. eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 17 March 2018. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
- “Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA”. 4 May 2016.
- The Proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation. A guide for in-house lawyers, Hunton & Williams LLP, June 2015, p. 14
- “Data protection” (PDF). European Commission – European Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
- “EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex”. eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 6 November 2017. Retrieved 7 November 2017..
- “Age of consent in the GDPR: updated mapping”. iapp.org. Archived from the original on 27 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May2018.
- “How the Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation Is Creating a Ripple Effect Worldwide”. Judy Schmitt, Florian Stahl. 11 October 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
- Hern, Alex (21 May 2018). “Most GDPR emails unnecessary and some illegal, say experts”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- “Official Journal L 119/2016”. eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 22 November 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- Article 29 Working Party (2017). Guidelines on the right to data portability. European Commission. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
- Veale, Michael; Binns, Reuben; Ausloos, Jef (2018). “When data protection by design and data subject rights clash”. International Data Privacy Law. 8 (2): 105–123. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipy002.
- Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J. (April 2016). “Singling out people without knowing their names – Behavioural targeting, pseudonymous data, and the new Data Protection Regulation”. Computer Law & Security Review. 32 (2): 256–271. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2015.12.013. ISSN 0267-3649.
- Proposal for the EU General Data Protection RegulationArchived 3 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine. European Commission. 25 January 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
- Baldry, Tony; Hyams, Oliver. “The Right to Be Forgotten”. 1 Essex Court. Archived from the original on 19 October 2017. Retrieved 1 June 2014.
- “European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation)”. European Parliament. Archived from the original on 5 June 2014. Retrieved 1 June 2014.
- “Right to object”. ico.org.uk. 30 August 2019. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
- “Privacy notices under the EU General Data Protection Regulation”. ico.org.uk. 19 January 2018. Archived from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
- “What information must be given to individuals whose data is collected?”. Europa (web portal). Archived from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2018.
- “Privacy and Data Protection by Design – ENISA”. Europa (web portal). Archived from the original on 5 April 2017. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
- Data science under GDPR with pseudonymization in the data pipeline Archived 18 April 2018 at the Wayback MachinePublished by Dativa, 17 April 2018
- “Looking to comply with GDPR? Here’s a primer on anonymization and pseudonymization”. iapp.org. Archivedfrom the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 19 February2018.
- “REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL (article 30)”. Archived from the original on 28 June 2017. Retrieved 7 June2017.
- “EUR-Lex – Art. 37”. eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 22 January 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
- “Explaining GDPR Data Subject Requests”. TrueVault. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
- “Guidelines on Data Protection Officers”. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
- Jankowski, Piper-Meredith. “Global reach of the GDPR: What is at stake?”. Lexology. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- Art. 27(4) GDPR.
- Art. 3(2) GDPR.
- Art. 27(2) GDPR.
- Art. 83(1),(2)&(4a) GDPR.
- “L_2016119EN.01000101.xml”. eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 10 November 2017. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
- Wehlander, Caroline (2016). “Chapter 2 “Economic activity”: criteria and relevance in the fields of EU internal market law, competition law and procurement law” (PDF). In Wehlander, Caroline (ed.). Services of general economic interest as a constitutional concept of EU Law. The Hague, Netherlands: TMC Asser Press. pp. 35–65. doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-117-3_2. ISBN 978-94-6265-116-6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 23 04 10 2019. Check date values in:
- House of Commons Justice Committee (November 2012). The Committee’s Opinion on the EU Data Protection Framework Proposals. House of Commons, U.K. p. 32. ISBN 9780215049759. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
Another issue that has been subject to a large number of comments… is the requirement to appoint a DPO
- Wessing, Taylor (1 September 2016). “The compliance burden under the GDPR – Data Protection Officers”. taylorwessing.com. Taylor Wessing. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
One of the politically most contentious innovations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) in certain cases.
- “Overview of amendments”. LobbyPlag. Archived from the original on 17 July 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
- “How Smart Businesses Can Avoid GDPR Penalties When Recording Calls”. xewave.io. Archived from the original on 14 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
- Babel, Chris (11 July 2017). “The High Costs of GDPR Compliance”. InformationWeek. UBM Technology Group. Archived from the original on 5 October 2017. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
- “Preparing for New Privacy Regimes: Privacy Professionals’ Views on the General Data Protection Regulation and Privacy Shield” (PDF). bakermckenzie.com. Baker & McKenzie. 4 May 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 August 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
- Georgiev, Georgi. “GDPR Compliance Cost Calculator”. GIGAcalculator.com. Archived from the original on 16 May 2018. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
- Solon, Olivia (19 April 2018). “How Europe’s ‘breakthrough’ privacy law takes on Facebook and Google”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May2018.
- “Europe’s new privacy rules are no silver bullet”. Politico.eu. 22 April 2018. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- “Lack of GDPR knowledge is a danger and an opportunity”. MicroscopeUK. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- “No one’s ready for GDPR”. The Verge. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
- “New rules on data protection pose compliance issues for firms”. The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- Wes, Matt (25 April 2017). “Looking to comply with GDPR? Here’s a primer on anonymization and pseudonymization”. IAPP. Archived from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
- Chassang, G. (2017). The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific research. ecancermedicalscience, 11.
- Tarhonen, Laura (2017). “Pseudonymisation of Personal Data According to the General Data Protection Regulation”. Archived from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
- “A recent report issued by the Blockchain Association of Ireland has found there are many more questions than answers when it comes to GDPR”. siliconrepublic.com. Archived from the original on 5 March 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
- Sample, Ian (27 January 2017). “AI watchdog needed to regulate automated decision-making, say experts”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 18 June 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
- “EU’s Right to Explanation: A Harmful Restriction on Artificial Intelligence”. techzone360.com. Archived from the original on 4 August 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
- Wachter, Sandra; Mittelstadt, Brent; Floridi, Luciano (28 December 2016). “Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation” – via SSRN.
- Edwards, Lilian; Veale, Michael (2017). “Slave to the algorithm? Why a “right to an explanation” is probably not the remedy you are looking for”. Duke Law and Technology Review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2972855. SSRN 2972855.
- Frimin, Michael (29 March 2018). “Five benefits GDPR compliance will bring to your business”. Forbes. Archivedfrom the original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September2018.
- Butterworth, Trevor (23 May 2018). “Europe’s tough new digital privacy law should be a model for US policymakers”. Vox. Archived from the original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
- Jaffe, Justin; Hautala, Laura (25 May 2018). “What the GDPR means for Facebook, the EU and you”. CNET. Archived from the original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September2018.
- “Facebook CEO Zuckerberg’s Call for GDPR Privacy Laws Raises Questions”. http://www.cnbc.com.
- Tiku, Nitasha (19 March 2018). “Europe’s new privacy law will change the web, and more”. Wired. Archived from the original on 15 October 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
- Kalyanpur, Nikhil; Newman, Abraham (25 May 2018). “Today, a new E.U. law transforms privacy rights for everyone. Without Edward Snowden, it might never have happened”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 October 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
- Stallman, Richard (3 April 2018). “A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
- Hoofnagle, Chris; van der Sloot, Bart; Borgesius, Frederik Zuiderveen (10 February 2019). “The European Union general data protection regulation: what it is and what it means”.
- Afifi-Sabet, Keumars (3 May 2018). “Scammers are using GDPR email alerts to conduct phishing attacks”. IT PRO. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May2018.
- “EU gov’t and public health sites are lousy with adtech, study finds”. TechCrunch. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
- “EU citizens being tracked on sensitive government websites”. Financial Times. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
- “Fall asleep in seconds by listening to a soothing voice read the EU’s new GDPR legislation”. The Verge. Archived from the original on 17 June 2018. Retrieved 16 June 2018.
- “How Europe’s GDPR Regulations Became a Meme”. Wired. Archived from the original on 18 June 2018. Retrieved 17 June2018.
- “The Internet Created a GDPR-Inspired Meme Using Privacy Policies”. Adweek. Archived from the original on 17 June 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
- Burgess, Matt. “Help, my lightbulbs are dead! How GDPR became bigger than Beyonce”. Wired.co.uk. Archived from the original on 19 June 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
- “Here Are Some of the Worst Attempts At Complying with GDPR”. Motherboard. 25 May 2018. Archived from the original on 18 June 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
- “What Percentage of Your Software Vulnerabilities Have GDPR Implications?” (PDF). HackerOne. 16 January 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
- “The Data Protection Officer (DPO): Everything You Need to Know”. Cranium and HackerOne. 20 March 2018. Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
- “What might bug bounty programs look like under the GDPR?”. The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). 27 March 2018. Archived from the original on 6 July 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
- “Instapaper is temporarily shutting off access for European users due to GDPR”. The Verge. Archived from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
- “Unroll.me to close to EU users saying it can’t comply with GDPR”. TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 30 May 2018. Retrieved 29 May 2018.
- Hern, Alex; Waterson, Jim (24 May 2018). “Sites block users, shut down activities and flood inboxes as GDPR rules loom”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- “Blocking 500 Million Users Is Easier Than Complying With Europe’s New Rules”. Bloomberg L.P. 25 May 2018. Archivedfrom the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “U.S. News Outlets Block European Readers Over New Privacy Rules”. The New York Times. 25 May 2018. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “Look: Here’s what EU citizens see now that GDPR has landed”. Advertising Age. Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- Tiku, Nitasha (24 May 2018). “Why Your Inbox Is Crammed Full of Privacy Policies”. Wired. Archived from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- Lanxon, Nate (25 May 2018). “Blocking 500 Million Users Is Easier Than Complying With Europe’s New Rules”. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May2018.
- “GDPR mayhem: Programmatic ad buying plummets in Europe”. Digiday. 25 May 2018. Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “GDPR: noyb.eu filed four complaints over “forced consent” against Google, Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook” (PDF). NOYB.eu. 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “Facebook and Google hit with $8.8 billion in lawsuits on day one of GDPR”. The Verge. Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “Max Schrems files first cases under GDPR against Facebook and Google”. The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “Facebook, Google face first GDPR complaints over ‘forced consent‘“. TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- Meyer, David. “Google, Facebook hit with serious GDPR complaints: Others will be soon”. ZDNet. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- Masnick, Mike (19 November 2018). “Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under ‘Data Protection’ Law”. Archived from the original on 20 November 2018. Retrieved 20 November 2018.
- Bălăiți, George (9 November 2018). “English Translation of the Letter from the Romanian Data Protection Authority to RISE Project”. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. Archived from the original on 9 November 2018. Retrieved 20 November 2018.
- Roberts, Jeff John (25 May 2018). “The GDPR Is in Effect: Should U.S. Companies Be Afraid?”. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
- “Commentary: California’s New Data Privacy Law Could Begin a Regulatory Disaster”. Fortune. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- “California Unanimously Passes Historic Privacy Bill”. Wired. Archived from the original on 29 June 2018. Retrieved 29 June2018.
- “Marketers and tech companies confront California’s version of GDPR”. Archived from the original on 29 June 2018. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
- Kelly, Makena (9 April 2019). “Big Tech’s ‘dark patterns’ could be outlawed under new Senate bill”. The Verge. Retrieved 10 April2019.
- “Data protection reform: Council adopts position at first reading – Consilium”. Europa (web portal).
- Adoption of the Council’s position at first reading Archived25 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Votewatch.eu
- Written procedure Archived 1 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine, 8 April 2016, Council of the European Union
- “Data protection reform – Parliament approves new rules fit for the digital era – News – European Parliament”. Archived from the original on 17 April 2016. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
- “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entered into force in the EEA”. EFTA. 20 July 2018. Archived from the original on 1 October 2018. Retrieved 30 September 2018.
- Kolsrud, Kjetil (10 July 2018). “GDPR – 20. juli er datoen!”. Rett24. Archived from the original on 13 July 2018. Retrieved 13 July 2018.
- “Digital Single Market”. Digital Single Market. Archived from the original on 8 October 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2017.
- “What does the ePrivacy Regulation mean for the online industry? – ePrivacy”. http://www.eprivacy.eu. Archived from the original on 22 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- “New Data Protection Act finalised in the UK”. Out-Law.com. Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May2018.
- “New UK Data Protection Act not welcomed by all”. Computer Weekly. Archived from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
- “Adequacy of the protection of personal data in non-EU countries”. European Commission. Archived from the original on 28 July 2018. Retrieved 3 August 2018.
- “Technical note: benefits of a new data protection agreement” (PDF). UK Government. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
- “Under-18s face ‘like’ and ‘streaks’ limits”. BBC News. 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- Greenfield, Patrick (15 April 2019). “Facebook urged to disable ‘like’ feature for child users”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- Aaron Schildhaus (5 June 2018). “EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Key Provisions and Best Practices”. AmericanBar.org.
- The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- EU Data Protection page
- Procedure 2012/0011/COD, EUR-Lex
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), EUR-Lex
- General Data Protection Regulation, final version dated 27 April 2016 (PDF)
- Handbook on European data protection law by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
- 2012/0011(COD) – Personal data protection: processing and free movement of data (General Data Protection Regulation), European Parliament
- GDPR Best Practices