GDPR
General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679
The global reference point for privacy law: lawful bases, principles, rights, accountability, breach notice within 72 hours, transfer rules and fines up to 4 percent of worldwide turnover.
The law in brief
The GDPR is the European Union's main data protection law. It sets the rules for collecting, using, sharing and keeping personal data about people in the EU, and it gives those people rights they can enforce. It reaches organizations inside the EU and many outside it.
Most of its duties fall on the controller, the organization that decides why and how personal data is used. Processors, which handle data on a controller's behalf, carry their own narrower duties and can be fined directly.
Who it applies to
- Organizations established in the EU, for processing in the context of that establishment, wherever the processing itself happens.
- Organizations outside the EU that offer goods or services to people in the EU, paid or free, or monitor their behavior in the EU (Art. 3(2)). They usually need a representative in the EU (Art. 27).
- It covers personal data: any information about an identified or identifiable living person. Purely personal or household activity is outside it (Art. 2).
- Size is no exemption. The one relief for smaller organizations concerns records of processing, and it is narrow (see Records of processing below).
Where it reaches
An EU establishment brings its processing under the GDPR even when the servers, staff or vendors doing the work are outside the EU.
What it requires
A lawful basis for every use
Each purpose needs one of six bases: consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task or legitimate interests. Choose and record it before you start; it decides which rights apply later.
The principles, and proving you follow them
Use data fairly and openly, only for stated purposes, no more than you need, accurate, kept no longer than necessary and secure. You must be able to show compliance, not just achieve it.
Sensitive data
Health, genetic and biometric data, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and sex life or sexual orientation are off limits unless one of the specific conditions in Article 9(2) applies.
Tell people what you do
When you collect data, tell people who you are, why you use it, on what basis, who receives it, how long you keep it and what rights they have, in clear and plain language.
Answer rights requests within a month
Act on a request without undue delay and within one month. For complex or numerous requests you can extend by two more months, if you tell the person within the first month. Requests are free unless manifestly unfounded or excessive.
Processors under a written contract
Use only processors that give sufficient guarantees, and bind each one by contract: documented instructions, confidentiality, security, sub-processor approval, help with rights and breaches, deletion or return at the end, and audits.
Records of processing
Keep a written record of your processing: purposes, categories of people and data, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. Organizations with fewer than 250 employees are exempt only when processing is occasional, unlikely to result in a risk and involves no sensitive or criminal-offense data, which is rare in practice.
Security appropriate to the risk
Put technical and organizational measures in place that match the risk, such as encryption or pseudonymization, resilience, the ability to restore access after an incident, and regular testing.
Report breaches to the authority within 72 hours
Notify the supervisory authority without undue delay, unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to people. A late notice must give reasons, and information can follow in phases. Processors must tell their controller without undue delay. Document every breach, notified or not.
Tell people about high-risk breaches
When a breach is likely to result in a high risk to people, tell them directly and without undue delay, in plain language, unless a listed exception applies, such as strong encryption.
Impact assessments before high-risk processing
Assess the impact before you start processing that is likely to be high risk. It is required in particular for automated decisions with legal or similar effects, large-scale sensitive or criminal-offense data, and large-scale monitoring of public areas.
A data protection officer, where required
Public authorities must appoint one, as must organizations whose core activities involve large-scale regular and systematic monitoring of people, or large-scale sensitive or criminal-offense data.
Transfers out of the EU
Personal data can leave the EU only on a recognized basis: an adequacy decision, appropriate safeguards such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules, or a narrow derogation.
People's rights
People can ask a controller to:
- see their data and how it is used (access, Art. 15);
- correct it (Art. 16), or erase it in the cases the law sets out (Art. 17);
- restrict its use, for example while a dispute is resolved (Art. 18);
- receive it in a machine-readable format to take elsewhere, where processing is automated and based on consent or a contract (portability, Art. 20);
- object to processing, with an absolute right to stop direct marketing (Art. 21);
- not be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing that have legal or similarly significant effects, subject to limited exceptions (Art. 22).
They can also complain to a supervisory authority (Art. 77) and claim compensation for material or non-material damage (Art. 82).
Enforcement and penalties
Two tiers of fines. Up to €10 million or 2% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher, for controller and processor duties such as security, records, impact assessments and breach notice (Art. 83(4)). Up to €20 million or 4%, whichever is higher, for the principles, legal bases, people's rights and transfer rules, and for ignoring an authority's order (Art. 83(5) and (6)). Authorities can also order processing to stop (Art. 58), and people can sue for damages (Art. 82).
The higher tier of fines
Up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher, for breaching the principles, legal bases, people's rights or transfer rules.
What's changing
Proposed, not law. The European Commission's Digital Omnibus proposal (COM(2025) 837, November 2025) would notify authorities only of breaches likely to result in a high risk, extend the deadline from 72 to 96 hours, and add a single EU reporting point. In late August 2026 it was still before the Parliament and Council. Keep your 72-hour process until it is adopted; Regulatory Watch will report the outcome.
What to do first
- Map your personal data: what you hold, why, where it goes and how long you keep it. The map becomes your record of processing.
- Give each purpose a lawful basis, and write it down.
- Rewrite your privacy notices so they match the map.
- Set up a rights-request process that verifies identity and answers within a month.
- Review processor contracts against Article 28(3) and close the gaps.
- Rehearse a breach: who decides, who notifies, and how you meet 72 hours.
- List every transfer out of the EU and the mechanism each one relies on.
- Run an impact assessment for anything high-risk, before it goes live.
Checked against the official text on 28 September 2026. Quotations are the operative words of the law, linked to the article they come from; the official text is the authority. This brief is written by the Association for practitioners and is not legal advice.
Recent developments
-
noyb files GDPR complaints against Scale AI's Outlier platform for invasive tracking and biometric verification
The complaints highlight potential EU data‑protection breaches in AI‑training platform labor practices. The privacy NGO noyb, together with partners, has lodged five GDPR complaints against Scale AI in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria. The complaints allege that Outlier places third‑party trackers on workers' devices and forces biometric verification without a legal basis, violating data‑minimisation and biometric data rules. No response to access requests is also claimed.
Source: noyb. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
AI Hallucination Goes to Court: Global Mapping of Emerging Legal Issues
The post shows how existing legal frameworks are being stretched to address the harms of AI‑generated misinformation, signalling emerging obligations for AI providers and users. A Future of Privacy Forum blog post maps 11 recent judicial and regulatory matters worldwide where AI‑generated false statements have become legally salient. The article highlights cases in China, Germany, Canada, the United States and the EU, showing how courts and regulators are applying existing doctrines such as defamation, unfair competition, misrepresentation and data‑protection accuracy to AI hallucinations.
Source: Future of Privacy Forum. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
noyb files GDPR complaints (C078, C097) over AI-generated inaccurate personal data
These complaints highlight how AI hallucinations challenge GDPR's accuracy and correction rights for individuals. The privacy NGO noyb has lodged two complaints (C078 and C097) with Data Protection Authorities alleging that ChatGPT generated false personal data, including an incorrect date of birth and a fabricated criminal narrative. The complaints argue that OpenAI cannot adequately correct or erase the inaccurate outputs, testing GDPR obligations on accuracy, rectification and erasure. The cases remain pending as of the publication date.
Case C078, C097.
Source: Future of Privacy Forum. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
German court grants preliminary injunction against Google for AI-generated search summary linking publishers to fraud
The ruling highlights that providers may be liable for inaccurate AI‑generated content presented as their own, shaping future AI governance and privacy obligations. The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction in the Google AI Overview proceedings (26 O 869/26). The court found that the AI-generated search summary, which linked two publishers to fraud and other dubious practices, was treated as Google's own content. The decision emphasizes the provider’s responsibility for the authority created by AI‑generated statements.
Case 26 O 869/26.
Source: Future of Privacy Forum. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
EU Council approves amendment to GDPR allowing unrestricted AI data processing
The amendment could override fundamental privacy rights by permitting AI firms to use all personal data with minimal safeguards. EU Member States, through the Council, approved a change to the GDPR that would make processing personal data "in the context of AI" automatically lawful. The amendment (Article 88bis) would let AI companies use any personal data without consent, relying on a broad legitimate interest. The proposal still requires negotiation with the European Parliament before becoming law.
Effective: not stated.
Source: noyb. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
EDPB adopts Guidelines 3/2025 on DSA‑GDPR interplay
The new EDPB guidance helps platforms align DSA duties with GDPR privacy requirements. On 17 September 2026 the European Data Protection Board adopted Guidelines 3/2025 addressing how the Digital Services Act interacts with the EU General Data Protection Regulation. The guidance clarifies the application of GDPR obligations for services covered by the DSA.
Effective: 17 September 2026.
Source: Hunton Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Blog. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
Berlin DPA finds microtargeting by major German parties illegal
The rulings signal that political parties in Germany may not use personal political data for targeted ads without consent, impacting future campaign practices. The Berlin Data Protection Authority issued decisions that the SPD, Greens, Die LINKE and CDU unlawfully used political microtargeting in the 2021 election. The authority ruled there was no legal basis, such as consent, for processing personal political interests for advertising. The AfD case remains pending.
Source: noyb. GDPR in the regulations library.
-
Norwegian DPA fines Xandr €8.6M for unlawful processing of Grindr users' data
The fine highlights the strict liability of joint controllers for obtaining valid consent when handling sensitive personal data. The Norwegian Data Protection Authority issued a final decision on 2 October 2026 imposing an administrative fine of EUR 8.6 million on Xandr Inc. for processing personal and special category data of Grindr users without valid consent. Xandr was found to be a joint controller in real‑time bidding, relying on invalid consent from Grindr for sexual orientation data.
Penalty: administrative fine of EUR 8 600 000.
Source: European Data Protection Board news. GDPR in the regulations library.
Sources
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 EUR-Lex · Official text or regulator
Regulations library
Every US state privacy law, on one map
24 states have a comprehensive privacy law in the library, alongside the EU, UK, US federal and global laws: 102 in all, each explained in plain words with its sources. Select a state to see what applies there.
- In force
- Coming into force
- Sector laws