General Data Protection Regulation

The General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679 (https://eur-l

ex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02016R06
Regulation (EU) 2016/679
79-20160504), "GDPR") is a Regulation in EU law on data (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/l
protection and privacy in the EU and the European Economic egal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=
Area (EEA). The GDPR is an important component of EU CELEX%3A02016R0679-20
privacy law and of human rights law, in particular Article 8(1) of 160504)
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It also
European Union regulation
addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA
areas. The GDPR's primary aim is to enhance individuals' control Text with EEA relevance
and rights over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory
environment for international business.[1] 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", who are located in the
EEA, and applies to any enterprise—regardless of its location and Title Regulation on
the data subjects' citizenship or residence—that is processing the the protection of
personal information of individuals inside the EEA. natural persons
with regard to the
The GDPR was adopted on 14 April 2016 and became
enforceable beginning 25 May 2018. As the GDPR is a regulation, processing of
not a directive, it is directly binding and applicable, and provides personal data
flexibility for certain aspects of the regulation to be adjusted by and on the free
individual member states. movement of
such data, and
The regulation became a model for many other laws across the repealing
world, including in Turkey, Mauritius, Chile, Japan, Brazil, South
Directive
Korea, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya. As of 6 October 2022,
95/46/EC (Data
the United Kingdom retains the law in identical form despite no
longer being an EU member state. The California Consumer Protection
Privacy Act (CCPA), adopted on 28 June 2018, has many Directive)
similarities with the GDPR.[2] Made by European
Parliament and
Contents Council of the
European Union
The GDPR 2016 has eleven chapters, concerning general Journal L119, 4 May
provisions, principles, rights of the data subject, duties of data reference 2016, p. 1–88 (ht
controllers or processors, transfers of personal data to third tps://eur-lex.euro
countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member pa.eu/eli/reg/201
6/679/oj)
History
Date made 14 April 2016
states, remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights, and Implementation 25 May 2018
miscellaneous final provisions. Recital 4 proclaims that ‘processing date
of personal data should be designed to serve mankind’.
Preparative texts
Commission COM/2012/010
General provisions proposal final – 2012/0010
(COD)
The regulation applies if the data controller (an organisation that
collects information about living people, whether they are in the Other legislation
EU or not), or processor (an organisation that processes data on Replaces Data Protection
behalf of a data controller like cloud service providers), or the data Directive
subject (person) is based in the EU. Under certain
Current legislation
circumstances,[3] 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."[4] The precise definitions of terms such as "personal data", "processing", "data
subject", "controller", and "processor" are stated in Article 4 of the Regulation.[5]

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[5] 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.[6] 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 State level, Union level, and international levels.[7]

A single set of rules applies to all EU member states. Each member state establishes an independent
supervisory authority (SA) to hear and investigate complaints, sanction administrative offences, etc. SAs in
each member state co-operate with other SAs, providing mutual assistance and organising joint operations.
If a business has multiple establishments in the EU, it must 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 thus acts as a "one-stop shop" to supervise all the processing activities of that business throughout
the EU (Articles 46–55 of the GDPR).[8][9] A European Data Protection Board (EDPB) co-ordinates the
SAs. EDPB thus replaces 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).

Principles
Personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis to do so. Article 6 states the
lawful purposes are:[10]

(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).[6]

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).[11][12] 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 8) 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).[13][14]

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).[15][16]

Rights of the data subject

Transparency and modalities

Article 12 requires the data controller to provide 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."[6]

Information and access

The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right.[17] It gives people 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.[18] 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 that the manufacturer restricts access to,[19] or in online behavioural
targeting, which relies heavily on device fingerprints that can be challenging to capture, send, and
verify.[20]

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.[21]

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.[22][23] 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, 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).[6]

Right to object and automated decisions

Article 21 of the GDPR allows an individual to object to processing personal information for marketing or
non-service related purposes.[24] This means the data controller must allow an individual the right to stop or
prevent controller from processing their personal data.

There are some instances where this objection does not apply. For example, if:

1. Legal or official authority is being carried out

2. "Legitimate interest", where the organisation needs to process data in order to provide the
data subject with a service they signed up for
3. A task being carried out for public interest.

GDPR is also clear that the data controller must inform individuals of their right to object from the first
communication the controller has with them. This should be clear and separate from any other information
the controller is providing and give them their options for how best to object to the processing of their data.

There are instances the controller can refuse a request, in the circumstances that the objection request is
"manifestly unfounded" or "excessive", so each case of objection must be looked at individually.[24] Other
countries such as Canada [25] are also, following the GDPR, considering legislation to regulate automated
decision making under privacy laws, even though there are policy questions as to whether this is the best
way to regulate AI.

Controller and processor

Data controllers 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. Firms have the obligation to protect data of employees and consumers to the degree
where only the necessary data is extracted with minimum interference with data privacy from employees,
consumers, or third parties. Firms should have internal controls and regulations for various departments
such as audit, internal controls, and operations. Data subjects have the right to request a portable copy of
the data collected by a controller in a common format, as well as 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 data breaches to national
supervisory authorities 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.

To be able to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR, the data controller must implement measures that
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).[6] When data is collected, data subjects must be clearly informed
about the extent of data collection, the legal basis for the 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, their right to erasure of their data under certain circumstances, their right to contest any
automated decision-making that was made on a solely algorithmic basis, and their 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.[26][27]

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. This is known as data
minimisation.

A report[28] 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.

Pseudonymisation
According to the GDPR, pseudonymisation is a required process for stored data that transforms personal
data in such a way that the resulting data cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of
additional information (as an alternative to the other option of complete data anonymisation).[29] An
example is encryption, which renders the original data unintelligible in a process that 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).[30]

Records of processing activities

According to Article 30,[6] records of processing activities have to be maintained by each organisation
matching one of following criteria:

employing more than 250 people;

the processing it carries out is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of data
subjects;
the processing is not occasional;
processing includes special categories of data as referred to in Article 9(1) or personal data
relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10.

Such requirements may be modified by each EU country. The records shall be in electronic form and the
controller or the processor and, where applicable, the controller's or the processor's representative, shall
make the record available to the supervisory authority on request.

Records of controller shall contain all of the following information:

the name and contact details of the controller and, where applicable, the joint controller, the
controller's representative and the data protection officer;
the purposes of the processing;
a description of the categories of data subjects and of the categories of personal data;
the categories of recipients to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed
including recipients in third countries or international organisations;
where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international
organisation, including the identification of that third country or international organisation
and, in the case of transfers referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), the
documentation of suitable safeguards;
where possible, the envisaged time limits for erasure of the different categories of data;
where possible, a general description of the technical and organisational security measures
referred to in Article 32(1).
Records of processor shall contain all of the following information:

the name and contact details of the processor or processors and of each controller on behalf
of which the processor is acting, and, where applicable, of the controller's or the processor's
representative, and the data protection officer;
the categories of processing carried out on behalf of each controller;
where applicable, transfers of personal data to a third country or an international
organisation, including the identification of that third country or international organisation
and, in the case of transfers referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), the
documentation of suitable safeguards;
where possible, a general description of the technical and organisational security measures
referred to in Article 32(1).[6]

Security of personal data

Controllers and processors 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). Data controllers must design
information systems with privacy in mind. For instance, using the highest-possible privacy settings by
default, so that the datasets are not publicly available by default and cannot be used to identify a subject. No
personal data may be processed unless this processing is done under one of the six lawful bases specified
by the regulation (consent, contract, public task, vital interest, legitimate interest or legal requirement).
When the processing is based on consent the data subject has the right to revoke it at any time.

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).[6]

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,[31]) 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.[6]

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.[32] 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.[33]

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.[34]

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[35]):
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[35]):
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 22
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)[6]

Exemptions
These are some cases which are not addressed in the GDPR specifically, thus are treated as exemptions.[36]

Personal or household activities

Law enforcement
National security[6]
When the GDPR was being created, it was strictly created for the regulation of personal data which goes
into the hands of companies. What is not covered by the GDPR is non-commercial information or
household activities.[37] An example of these household activities may be emails between two high school
friends.

Conversely, an entity or more precisely an "enterprise" has to be engaged in "economic activity" to be

covered by the GDPR.[a] Economic activity is defined broadly under European Union competition law.[38]

Applicability outside of the European Union

The GDPR also applies to data controllers and processors outside of the European Economic Area (EEA)
if they are engaged in the "offering of goods or services" (regardless of whether a payment is required) to
data subjects within the EEA, or are monitoring the behaviour of data subjects within the EEA (Article
3(2)). The regulation applies regardless of where the processing takes place.[39] This has been interpreted
as intentionally giving GDPR extraterritorial jurisdiction for non-EU establishments if they are doing
business with people located in the EU.[40]

EU Representative

Under Article 27, non-EU establishments subject to GDPR are obliged to have a designee within the
European Union, an "EU Representative", to serve as a point of contact for their obligations under the
regulation. 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. A natural (individual) or moral (corporation) person can play the role of an EU Representative.[41]
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.[42]

An establishment's failure to designate an EU Representative is considered ignorance of the regulation and

relevant obligations, which itself is a violation of the GDPR subject to fines of 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. The intentional or negligent (willful blindness) character of the infringement (failure to designate an
EU Representative) may rather constitute aggravating factors.[43]

An establishment does not need to name an EU Representative if they only engage in occasional
processing that does not include, on a large scale, processing of special categories of data as referred to in
Article 9(1) of GDPR or processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred
to in Article 10, 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.[6] Non-EU public
authorities and bodies are equally exempted.[44]

Third countries

Chapter V of the GDPR forbids the transfer of the personal data of EU data subjects to countries outside of
the EEA — known as third countries — unless appropriate safeguards are imposed, or the third country's
data protection regulations are formally considered adequate by the European Commission (Article
45).[45][46] Binding corporate rules, standard contractual clauses for data protection issued by a Data
Processing Agreement (DPA), or a scheme of binding and enforceable commitments by the data controller
or processor situated in a third country, are among examples.[47]

United Kingdom implementation

The applicability of GDPR in the United Kingdom is affected by

Brexit. Although the United Kingdom formally withdrew from the
European Union on 31 January 2020, it remained subject to EU
law, including GDPR, until the end of the transition period on 31
December 2020.[45] The United Kingdom granted royal assent to
the Data Protection Act 2018 on 23 May 2018, which augmented
Explanation of the possible results
the GDPR, including aspects of the regulation that are to be
from UK's divergence from the
determined by national law, and criminal offences for knowingly or
European GDPR[48]
recklessly obtaining, redistributing, or retaining personal data
without the consent of the data controller.[49][50]

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, existing and relevant EU law was transposed into local
law upon completion of the transition, and the GDPR was amended by statutory instrument to remove
certain provisions no longer needed due to the UK's non-membership in the EU. Thereafter, the regulation
will be referred to as "UK GDPR".[51][46][45] The UK will not restrict the transfer of personal data to
countries within the EEA under UK GDPR. However, the UK will become a third country under the EU
GDPR, meaning that personal data may not be transferred to the country unless appropriate safeguards are
imposed, or the European Commission performs an adequacy decision on the suitability of British data
protection legislation (Chapter V). As part of the withdrawal agreement, the European Commission
committed to perform an adequacy assessment.[45][46]

In April 2019, the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) issued a children's 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 on the use
of this data for processing interests.[52][53]

In March 2021, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Oliver Dowden stated that the UK
was exploring divergence from the EU GDPR in order to "[focus] more on the outcomes that we want to
have and less on the burdens of the rules imposed on individual businesses".[54]

Reception
As per a study conducted by Deloitte in 2018, 92% of companies believe they are able to comply with
GDPR in their business practices in the long run.[55]

Companies operating outside of the EU have invested heavily to align their business practices with GDPR.
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.[56]
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.[57] 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."[58] The total cost
for EU companies is estimated at around €200 billion while for US companies the estimate is for $41.7
billion.[59] 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.[60][61] A lack of
knowledge and understanding of the regulations has also been a concern in the lead-up to its adoption.[62]
A counter-argument to this has been that companies were made aware of these changes two years prior to
them coming into effect and should have had enough time to prepare.[63]

The regulations, including whether an enterprise must have a data protection officer, have been criticized
for potential administrative burden and unclear compliance requirements.[64] Although data minimisation is
a requirement, with pseudonymisation being one of the possible means, the regulation provides 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.[65][66][67]
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.[68] Many media
outlets have commented on the introduction of a "right to explanation" of algorithmic decisions,[69][70] but
legal scholars have since argued that the existence of such a right is highly unclear without judicial tests and
is limited at best.[71][72]

The GDPR has garnered support from businesses who regard it as an opportunity to improve their data
management.[73][74] Mark Zuckerberg has also called it a "very positive step for the Internet",[75] and has
called for GDPR-style laws to be adopted in the US.[76] Consumer rights groups such as The European
Consumer Organisation are among the most vocal proponents of the legislation.[77] Other supporters have
attributed its passage to the whistleblower Edward Snowden.[78] Free software advocate Richard Stallman
has praised some aspects of the GDPR but called for additional safeguards to prevent technology
companies from "manufacturing consent".[79]

Impact
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."

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.[80][15] 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.[81][82]
The deluge of GDPR-related notices also inspired memes, including those surrounding privacy policy
notices being delivered by atypical means (such as a Ouija board or Star Wars opening crawl), suggesting
that Santa Claus's "naughty or nice" list was a violation, and a recording of excerpts from the regulation by
a former BBC Radio 4 Shipping Forecast announcer. A blog, GDPR Hall of Shame, was also created to
showcase unusual delivery of GDPR notices, and attempts at compliance that contained egregious
violations of the regulation's requirements. Its author remarked that the regulation "has a lot of nitty gritty,
in-the-weeds details, but not a lot of information about how to comply", but also acknowledged that
businesses had two years to comply, making some of its responses unjustified.[83][84][85][86][87]

Research indicates that approximately 25% of software vulnerabilities have GDPR implications.[88] 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.[89][90] An investigation of Android apps' privacy policies, data access capabilities, and
data access behaviour has shown that numerous apps display a somewhat privacy-friendlier behaviour
since the GDPR was implemented, although they still retain most of their data access privileges in their
code.[91][92] An investigation of the Consumer Council of Norway (called Forbrukerrådet in Norwegian)
into the post-GDPR data subject dashboards on social media platforms (such as Google dashboard) has
concluded that large social media firms deploy deceptive tactics in order to discourage their customers from
sharpening their privacy settings.[93]

On the effective date, some websites began to block visitors from EU countries entirely (including
Instapaper,[94] Unroll.me,[95] 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 so that they will not be
liable.[96][97][98][99] 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.[100][101][102] The volume of online behavioural
advertising placements in Europe fell 25–40% on 25 May 2018.[103][104]

In 2020, two years after the GDPR began its implementation, the European Commission assessed that users
across the EU had increased their knowledge about their rights, stating that "69% of the population above
the age of 16 in the EU have heard about the GDPR and 71% of people heard about their national data
protection authority."[105][106] The commission also found that privacy has become a competitive quality
for companies which consumers are taking into account in their decisionmaking processes.[105]

Enforcement and inconsistency

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 would be forbidden from using the
services.[107][108][109][110][111] On 21 January 2019, Google was fined €50 million by the French DPA for
showing insufficient control, consent, and transparency over use of personal data for behavioural
advertising.[112][113] In November 2018, following a journalistic investigation into Liviu Dragnea, the
Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) used a GDPR request to demand information on the RISE Project's
sources.[114][115]

In July 2019, the British Information Commissioner's Office issued an intention to fine British Airways a
record £183 million (1.5% of turnover) for poor security arrangements that enabled a 2018 web skimming
attack affecting around 380,000 transactions.[116][117][118][119][120] British Airways was ultimately fined a
reduced amount of £20m, with the ICO noting that they had "considered both representations from BA and
the economic impact of COVID-19 on their business before setting a final penalty".[121]

In December 2019, Politico reported that Ireland and Luxembourg – two smaller EU countries that have
had a reputation as a tax havens and (especially in the case of Ireland) as a base for European subsidiaries
of U.S. big tech companies – were facing significant backlogs in their investigations of major foreign
companies under GDPR, with Ireland citing the complexity of the regulation as a factor. Critics interviewed
by Politico also argued that enforcement was also being hampered by varying interpretations between
member states, the prioritisation of guidance over enforcement by some authorities, and a lack of
cooperation between member states.[122]

In November 2021, Irish Council for Civil Liberties lodged a formal complaint of the Commission that it is
in breach of its obligation under EU Law to carefully monitor how Ireland applies the GDPR. [123] Until
January 2023, the Commission published a new commitment based on the complaint of ICCL. [123] The
commitment by the Commission to receive bi-monthly reports from national DPAs on large-scale cross-
border investigations, and provide an account of its practice in the second report on GDPR application, is a
positive step towards improving cross-border GDPR enforcement. However, only a commitment is far from
enough, there are still issues and challenges that need to be addressed to ensure that the GDPR enforcement
system for national data protection authorities is effective. From the vertical perspective, this commitment
lacks clarity on how the Commission will use the information received from the national DPAs. From the
horizontal perspective, this commitment is limited in scope of information shared between DPAs and does
not focus on mutual cooperation among national DPAs.

While companies are now subject to legal obligations, there are still various inconsistencies in the practical
and technical implementation of GDPR.[124] As an example, according to the GDPR's right to access, the
companies are obliged to provide data subjects with the data they gather about them. However, in a study
on loyalty cards in Germany, companies did not provide the data subjects with the exact information of the
purchased articles.[125] One might argue that such companies do not collect the information of the
purchased articles, which does not conform with their business models. Therefore, data subjects tend to see
that as a GDPR violation. As a result, studies have suggested for a better control through authorities.[125]

According to the GDPR, end-users' consent should be valid, freely given, specific, informed and
active.[126] However, the lack of enforceability regarding obtaining lawful consents has been a challenge.
As an example, a 2020 study, showed that the Big Tech, i.e. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and
Microsoft (GAFAM), use dark patterns in their consent obtaining mechanisms, which raises doubts
regarding the lawfulness of the acquired consent.[126]

In March 2021, EU member states led by France were reported to be attempting to modify the impact of the
privacy regulation in Europe by exempting national security agencies.[127]

After around 160 million Euros in GDPR fines were imposed in 2020, the figure was already over one
billion Euros in 2021.[128]

Influence on foreign laws

Mass adoption of these new privacy standards by multinational companies has been cited as an example of
the "Brussels effect", a phenomenon wherein European laws and regulations are used as a baseline due to
their gravitas.[129]
The U.S. state of California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act on 28 June 2018, taking effect on
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.[130][131][132] Two other U.S. states have since enacted similar legislation: Virginia
passed the Consumer Data Privacy Act on 2 March 2021,[133] and Colorado enacted the Colorado Privacy
Act on 8 July 2021.[134]

The Republic of Turkey, a candidate for European Union membership, has adopted the Law on The
Protection of Personal Data on 24 March 2016 in compliance with the EU acquis.[135]

In China, the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), "China's first comprehensive law designed to
regulate online data and protect personal information" came into force in 2021.[136]

Switzerland will also adopt a new data protection law that largely follows EU’s GDPR.[137]

Timeline
25 January 2012: The proposal for the GDPR was released.[9]
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.[138] 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.[139][140]
14 April 2016: Adoption by the European Parliament.[141]
24 May 2016: The regulation entered into force, 20 days after its publication in the Official
Journal of the European Union.[17]
25 May 2018: Its provisions became directly applicable in all member states, two years after
the regulations enter into force.[17]
20 July 2018: the GDPR became valid in the EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and
Norway),[142] after the EEA Joint Committee and the three countries agreed to follow the
regulation.[143]

EU Digital Single Market

The EU Digital Single Market strategy relates to "digital economy" activities related to businesses and
people in the EU.[144] 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.[145] The eIDAS Regulation is also part of the strategy.
In an initial assessment, the European Council has stated that the GDPR should be considered "a
prerequisite for the development of future digital policy initiatives".[146]

See also
European Union
portal
Law portal

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
Convention on Cybercrime
Data Act
Data Governance Act, proposed EU law from 2020
Data portability
Digital Markets Act
Digital Services Act
Do Not Track legislation
ePrivacy Regulation
EU–US Privacy Shield
European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD)
European Health Data Space
Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) (China)
Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002
Privacy Impact Assessment
Protection of Personal Information Act (PoPIA) (South Africa)

Notes
a. 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.[6]

Citations
1. "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" (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9565-2015-INIT/en/pdf). Archived (h
ttps://web.archive.org/web/20151225181657/http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/
ST-9565-2015-INIT/en/pdf) from the original on 25 December 2015. Retrieved 30 December
2015.
 2. Francesca Lucarini, "The differences between the California Consumer Privacy Act and the
GDPR" (https://advisera.com/eugdpracademy/blog/2020/04/13/gdpr-vs-ccpa-what-are-the-m
ain-differences/) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200712060310/https://advisera.co
m/eugdpracademy/blog/2020/04/13/gdpr-vs-ccpa-what-are-the-main-differences/) 12 July
2020 at the Wayback Machine, Adviser
3. 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.
4. "What is personal data?" (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-t
o-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/key-definitions/what-is-personal-data/).
January 2021. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190724112940/https://ico.org.uk/for-
organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/
key-definitions/what-is-personal-data/) from the original on 24 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July
2019.
5. "EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/en
g). eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180317035823/http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng) from the original on 17 March 2018. Retrieved 21 March
2018.
6. "REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL (article 30)" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:3
2016R0679&from=EN#d1e3265-1-1). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201706281745
34/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=E
N#d1e3265-1-1#d1e3265-1-1) from the original on 28 June 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171016050101/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
16 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine.
7. "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" (http://d
ata.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj/eng). 4 May 2016.
8. The Proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation. A guide for in-house lawyers,
Hunton & Williams LLP, June 2015, p. 14
9. "Data protection" (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_201
2_11_en.pdf) (PDF). European Commission – European Commission. Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/revie
w2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved
3 January 2013.
10. "EUR-Lex – 32016R0679 – EN – EUR-Lex" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TX
T/?uri=celex:32016R0679). eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171
106021830/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679) from
the original on 6 November 2017. Retrieved 7 November 2017..
11. "newsmyynews" (https://westminstercollege.edu/student-life/the-forum#comments-f0774046
-beef-6cf4-9016-ff000033899e_en). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2020102205240
5/https://westminstercollege.edu/student-life/the-forum#comments-f0774046-beef-6cf4-9016-
ff000033899e_en) from the original on 22 October 2020. Retrieved 21 October 2020.
12. "General_Data_Protection_Regulation" (https://westminstercollege.edu/student-life/the-foru
m). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201022052405/https://westminstercollege.edu/s
tudent-life/the-forum) from the original on 22 October 2020. Retrieved 21 October 2020.
13. "Age of consent in the GDPR: updated mapping" (https://iapp.org/resources/article/age-of-co
nsent-in-the-gdpr-updated-mapping/). iapp.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180
527023437/https://iapp.org/resources/article/age-of-consent-in-the-gdpr-updated-mapping/)
from the original on 27 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
14. "How the Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation Is Creating a Ripple Effect Worldwide"
(https://www.privacyassociation.org/media/presentations/A12_EU_DP_Regulation_PPT.pdf)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210217012511/https://iapp.org/media/presentation
s/A12_EU_DP_Regulation_PPT.pdf) 17 February 2021 at the Wayback Machine. Judy
Schmitt, Florian Stahl. 11 October 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
15. Hern, Alex (21 May 2018). "Most GDPR emails unnecessary and some illegal, say experts"
(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/21/gdpr-emails-mostly-unnecessary-an
d-in-some-cases-illegal-say-experts). The Guardian. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0180528054755/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/21/gdpr-emails-mostly-
unnecessary-and-in-some-cases-illegal-say-experts) from the original on 28 May 2018.
Retrieved 28 May 2018.
16. Kamleitner, Bernadette; Mitchell, Vince (1 October 2019). "Your Data Is My Data: A
Framework for Addressing Interdependent Privacy Infringements" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2
F0743915619858924). Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 38 (4): 433–450.
doi:10.1177/0743915619858924 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0743915619858924).
ISSN 0743-9156 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0743-9156). S2CID 201343307 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:201343307).
17. "Official Journal L 119/2016" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:
L:2016:119:FULL). eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201811220119
11/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2016:119:FULL) from
the original on 22 November 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
18. Article 29 Working Party (2017). Guidelines on the right to data portability (http://ec.europa.e
u/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=44099). European Commission. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20170629062729/http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=4409
9) from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
19. Veale, Michael; Binns, Reuben; Ausloos, Jef (2018). "When data protection by design and
data subject rights clash" (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fidpl%2Fipy002). International Data
Privacy Law. 8 (2): 105–123. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipy002 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fidpl%2Fipy
002).
20. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.clsr.2015.12.013). ISSN 0267-
3649 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0267-3649).
21. Proposal for the EU General Data Protection Regulation (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-pro
tection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
20121203024154/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_20
12_11_en.pdf) 3 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine. European Commission. 25
January 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
22. Baldry, Tony; Hyams, Oliver (15 May 2014). "The Right to Be Forgotten" (http://1essexcourt.
wordpress.com/2014/05/15/the-right-to-be-forgotten/). 1 Essex Court. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20171019005028/https://1essexcourt.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/the-right-to-
be-forgotten/) from the original on 19 October 2017. Retrieved 1 June 2014.
23. "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)" (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type
=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0212&language=EN). European Parliament. Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20140605050912/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type
=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0212&language=EN) from the original on 5 June 2014.
Retrieved 1 June 2014.
24. "Right to object" (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-ge
neral-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-object/). ico.org.uk. 30 August
2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20191202163129/https://ico.org.uk/for-organisat
ions/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual
-rights/right-to-object/) from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
25. Sookman, Barry; Charles Morgan; Adam Goldenberg (30 April 2021). "Using privacy laws to
regulate automated decision making" (https://www.barrysookman.com/2021/04/30/using-priv
acy-laws-to-regulate-automated-decision-making/). Barry Sookman. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20210524193137/https://www.barrysookman.com/2021/04/30/using-privacy-l
aws-to-regulate-automated-decision-making/) from the original on 24 May 2021. Retrieved
24 May 2021.
26. "Privacy notices under the EU General Data Protection Regulation" (https://ico.org.uk/for-org
anisations/guide-to-data-protection/privacy-notices-transparency-and-control/privacy-notices
-under-the-eu-general-data-protection-regulation/). ico.org.uk. 19 January 2018. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20180523101041/https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-
protection/privacy-notices-transparency-and-control/privacy-notices-under-the-eu-general-d
ata-protection-regulation/) from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
27. "What information must be given to individuals whose data is collected?" (https://ec.europa.e
u/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/principles-gdpr/
what-information-must-be-given-individuals-whose-data-collected_en). Europa (web portal).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180523102419/https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-to
pic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/principles-gdpr/what-informatio
n-must-be-given-individuals-whose-data-collected_en) from the original on 23 May 2018.
Retrieved 23 May 2018.
28. "Privacy and Data Protection by Design – ENISA" (https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publication
s/privacy-and-data-protection-by-design). Europa (web portal). Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20170405171636/https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/privacy-and-data-prote
ction-by-design) from the original on 5 April 2017. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
29. Data science under GDPR with pseudonymization in the data pipeline (https://www.dativa.c
om/data-science-gdpr-pseudonymization-data-pipeline/) Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20180418230748/https://www.dativa.com/data-science-gdpr-pseudonymization-data-pip
eline/) 18 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine Published by Dativa, 17 April 2018
30. "Looking to comply with GDPR? Here's a primer on anonymization and pseudonymization"
(https://iapp.org/news/a/looking-to-comply-with-gdpr-heres-a-primer-on-anonymization-and-
pseudonymization/). iapp.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180219150511/http
s://iapp.org/news/a/looking-to-comply-with-gdpr-heres-a-primer-on-anonymization-and-pseu
donymization/) from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
31. "EUR-Lex – Art. 37" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R06
79). eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170122015414/http://eur-le
x.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679) from the original on 22
January 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
32. "Explaining GDPR Data Subject Requests" (https://www.truevault.com/learn/explaining-gdpr
-data-subject-requests). TrueVault. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190220063113/
https://www.truevault.com/learn/explaining-gdpr-data-subject-requests) from the original on
20 February 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
33. "Guidelines on Data Protection Officers" (http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_
id=44100). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170629063312/http://ec.europa.eu/news
room/document.cfm?doc_id=44100) from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 27 August
2017.
34. Jankowski, Piper-Meredith (21 June 2017). "reach of the GDPR: What is at stake?" (https://w
ww.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b3db89a5-ac63-4fcb-9d71-b08c00a609e3).
Lexology. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180526041216/https://www.lexology.co
m/library/detail.aspx?g=b3db89a5-ac63-4fcb-9d71-b08c00a609e3) from the original on 26
May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
35. "L_2016119EN.01000101.xml" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=C
ELEX:32016R0679#d1e6226-1-1). eur-lex.europa.eu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20171110044439/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:3201
6R0679#d1e6226-1-1#d1e6226-1-1) from the original on 10 November 2017. Retrieved
28 August 2016.
36. "Exemptions" (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-gener
al-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/exemptions/). ico.org.uk. 20 July 2020. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20201111192123/https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-prote
ction/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/exemptions/) from the original on
11 November 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020.
37. "The 'Household Exemption' In GDPR" (https://www.fff-legal.com/the-household-exemption-i
n-gdpr/). Fenech Farrugia Fiott Legal. 22 May 2020. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0201029125438/https://www.fff-legal.com/the-household-exemption-in-gdpr/) from the
original on 29 October 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020.
38. Wehlander, Caroline (2016). "Chapter 2 "Economic activity": criteria and relevance in the
fields of EU internal market law, competition law and procurement law" (https://www.springe
r.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789462651166-c2.pdf) (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 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-94-6265-117-3_2). ISBN 978-94-6265-116-6.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180526041503/https://www.springer.com/cda/conte
nt/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789462651166-c2.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 26
May 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2018.
39. "The (Extra) Territorial Scope of the GDPR: The Right to Be Forgotten" (https://www.fasken.c
om/en/knowledge/2019/11/the-extra-territorial-scope-of-the-gdpr/). Fasken.com. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20200221171716/https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2019/11/t
he-extra-territorial-scope-of-the-gdpr/) from the original on 21 February 2020. Retrieved
21 February 2020.
40. "Extraterritorial Scope of GDPR: Do Businesses Outside the EU Need to Comply?" (https://
www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2018/04/01_speirs/). American
Bar Association. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200221171715/https://www.americ
anbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2018/04/01_speirs/) from the original on 21
February 2020. Retrieved 21 February 2020.
41. Art. 27(4) GDPR.
42. Art. 27(1) GDPR.
43. Art. 83(1),(2)&(4a) GDPR.
44. Art. 27(2) GDPR.
45. "UK: Understanding the full impact of Brexit on UK: EU data flows" (https://blogs.dlapiper.co
m/privacymatters/uk-gdpr-brexit-flowchart/). Privacy Matters. DLA Piper. 23 September 2019.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200220164635/https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacym
atters/uk-gdpr-brexit-flowchart/) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved
20 February 2020.
46. Palmer, Danny. "On data protection, the UK says it will go it alone. It probably won't" (https://
www.zdnet.com/article/on-data-protection-the-uk-says-it-will-go-it-alone-it-probably-wont/).
ZDNet. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200216175628/https://www.zdnet.com/articl
e/on-data-protection-the-uk-says-it-will-go-it-alone-it-probably-wont/) from the original on 16
February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
47. Donnelly, Conor (18 January 2018). "How to transfer data to a 'third country' under the
GDPR" (https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/how-to-transfer-data-to-a-third-country-under-t
he-gdpr). IT Governance Blog En. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200221171715/h
ttps://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/how-to-transfer-data-to-a-third-country-under-the-gdpr)
from the original on 21 February 2020. Retrieved 21 February 2020.
48. "Digital Rights post-Brexit" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efz4utnzjjI). Youtube. Open
Rights Group. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221122202536/https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=efz4utnzjjI&gl=US&hl=en) from the original on 22 November 2022. Retrieved
27 November 2022. Video from Open Rights Group developed as an explainer of the UK's
proposals
49. "New Data Protection Act finalised in the UK" (https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/ma
y/new-data-protection-act-finalised-uk/). Out-Law.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20180525120311/https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/may/new-data-protection-act-fi
nalised-uk/) from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
50. Ashford, Warwick (24 May 2018). "New UK Data Protection Act not welcomed by all" (https://
www.computerweekly.com/news/252441814/New-UK-Data-Protection-Act-not-welcomed-by
-all). Computer Weekly. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180524143548/https://ww
w.computerweekly.com/news/252441814/New-UK-Data-Protection-Act-not-welcomed-by-al
l) from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
51. Porter, Jon (20 February 2020). "Google shifts authority over UK user data to the US in wake
of Brexit" (https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/20/21145180/google-uk-user-data-processing-ir
eland-usa-authorities-data-protection-gdpr-cloud-act). The Verge. Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20200220164636/https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/20/21145180/google-uk-use
r-data-processing-ireland-usa-authorities-data-protection-gdpr-cloud-act) from the original on
20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
52. "Under-18s face 'like' and 'streaks' limits" (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-4793352
1). BBC News. 15 April 2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190415172531/http
s://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47933521) from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved
15 April 2019.
53. Greenfield, Patrick (15 April 2019). "Facebook urged to disable 'like' feature for child users"
(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/15/facebook-urged-to-ditch-like-feature-i
n-uk-online-child-safety-drive). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/0261-3077). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190415085023/https://www.theguard
ian.com/technology/2019/apr/15/facebook-urged-to-ditch-like-feature-in-uk-online-child-safet
y-drive) from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
54. Afifi-Sabet, Keumars (12 March 2021). "UK seeks divergence from GDPR to 'fuel growth' " (h
ttps://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/358874/uk-seeks-divergence-from-g
dpr-to-fuel-growth). IT PRO. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210313063042/https://
www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/358874/uk-seeks-divergence-from-gdpr-to
-fuel-growth) from the original on 13 March 2021. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
55. Gooch, Peter (2018). "A new era for privacy - GDPR six months on" (https://www2.deloitte.co
m/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/risk/deloitte-uk-risk-gdpr-six-months-on.pdf) (PDF).
Deloitte UK. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201012110809/https://www2.deloitte.c
om/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/risk/deloitte-uk-risk-gdpr-six-months-on.pdf) (PDF)
from the original on 12 October 2020. Retrieved 26 November 2020.
56. Norman, Kenzo (26 February 2021). "How Smart Businesses Can Avoid GDPR Penalties
When Recording Calls" (https://washingtonindependent.com/what-smart-businesses-can-do
-to-avoid-gdpr-penalties-when-recording-calls/). The Washington Independent. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20210424042826/https://washingtonindependent.com/what-smart-
businesses-can-do-to-avoid-gdpr-penalties-when-recording-calls/) from the original on 24
April 2021. Retrieved 22 April 2021.
57. Babel, Chris (11 July 2017). "The High Costs of GDPR Compliance" (https://www.darkreadi
ng.com/endpoint/the-high-costs-of-gdpr-compliance/a/d-id/1329263?). InformationWeek.
UBM Technology Group. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171005051046/https://ww
w.darkreading.com/endpoint/the-high-costs-of-gdpr-compliance/a/d-id/1329263) from the
original on 5 October 2017. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
58. "Preparing for New Privacy Regimes: Privacy Professionals' Views on the General Data
Protection Regulation and Privacy Shield" (http://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/416/76165/IAPP_GDPR_
and_Privacy_Shield_Survey_Report.pdf) (PDF). bakermckenzie.com. Baker & McKenzie. 4
May 2016. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180831164743/http://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/4
16/76165/IAPP_GDPR_and_Privacy_Shield_Survey_Report.pdf) (PDF) from the original on
31 August 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
59. Georgiev, Georgi. "GDPR Compliance Cost Calculator" (https://www.gigacalculator.com/calc
ulators/gdpr-compliance-cost-calculator.php). GIGAcalculator.com. Archived (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20180516224335/https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/gdpr-compliance
-cost-calculator.php) from the original on 16 May 2018. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
60. Solon, Olivia (19 April 2018). "How Europe's 'breakthrough' privacy law takes on Facebook
and Google" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/gdpr-facebook-google-a
mazon-data-privacy-regulation). The Guardian. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180
526112914/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/gdpr-facebook-google-am
azon-data-privacy-regulation) from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
61. "Europe's new privacy rules are no silver bullet" (https://www.politico.eu/article/gdpr-rules-eu
rope-facebook-data-protection-privacy-general-data-protection-regulation-cambridge-analyti
ca/). Politico.eu. 22 April 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180526041653/http
s://www.politico.eu/article/gdpr-rules-europe-facebook-data-protection-privacy-general-data-
protection-regulation-cambridge-analytica/) from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved
25 May 2018.
62. "Lack of GDPR knowledge is a danger and an opportunity" (https://www.computerweekly.co
m/microscope/news/2240234469/Lack-of-GDPR-knowledge-is-a-danger-and-an-opportunit
y). MicroscopeUK. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180526041200/https://www.com
puterweekly.com/microscope/news/2240234469/Lack-of-GDPR-knowledge-is-a-danger-and
-an-opportunity) from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
63. Jeong, Sarah (22 May 2018). "No one's ready for GDPR" (https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/
22/17378688/gdpr-general-data-protection-regulation-eu). The Verge. Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20180528022510/https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/22/17378688/gdpr-gen
eral-data-protection-regulation-eu) from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
64. Edwards, Elaine (22 February 2018). "New rules on data protection pose compliance issues
for firms" (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/new-rules-on-data-protection-pos
e-compliance-issues-for-firms-1.3397742). The Irish Times. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20180526041717/https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/new-rules-on-data
-protection-pose-compliance-issues-for-firms-1.3397742) from the original on 26 May 2018.
Retrieved 25 May 2018.
65. Wes, Matt (25 April 2017). "Looking to comply with GDPR? Here's a primer on
anonymization and pseudonymization" (https://iapp.org/news/a/looking-to-comply-with-gdpr-
heres-a-primer-on-anonymization-and-pseudonymization/). IAPP. Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20180219150511/https://iapp.org/news/a/looking-to-comply-with-gdpr-heres-a-pr
imer-on-anonymization-and-pseudonymization/) from the original on 19 February 2018.
Retrieved 19 February 2018.
66. Chassang, G. (2017). The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific
research. ecancermedicalscience, 11.
67. Tarhonen, Laura (2017). "Pseudonymisation of Personal Data According to the General
Data Protection Regulation" (https://www.edilex.fi/viestintaoikeus/18073). Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20180219150702/https://www.edilex.fi/viestintaoikeus/18073) from the
original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
68. "A recent report issued by the Blockchain Association of Ireland has found there are many
more questions than answers when it comes to GDPR" (https://www.siliconrepublic.com/ent
erprise/blockchain-gdpr-report-bai). siliconrepublic.com. 23 November 2017. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20180305202537/https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/blockc
hain-gdpr-report-bai) from the original on 5 March 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
69. Sample, Ian (27 January 2017). "AI watchdog needed to regulate automated decision-
making, say experts" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/27/ai-artificial-intelli
gence-watchdog-needed-to-prevent-discriminatory-automated-decisions). The Guardian.
ISSN 0261-3077 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0261-3077). Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20170618031432/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/27/ai-artificial-int
elligence-watchdog-needed-to-prevent-discriminatory-automated-decisions) from the
original on 18 June 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
70. "EU's Right to Explanation: A Harmful Restriction on Artificial Intelligence" (http://www.techz
one360.com/topics/techzone/articles/2017/01/25/429101-eus-right-explanation-harmful-restr
iction-artificial-intelligence.htm). techzone360.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
170804005751/http://www.techzone360.com/topics/techzone/articles/2017/01/25/429101-eu
s-right-explanation-harmful-restriction-artificial-intelligence.htm) from the original on 4
August 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
71. 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". SSRN 2903469 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=290346
9).
72. Edwards, Lilian; Veale, Michael (2017). "Slave to the algorithm? Why a "right to an
explanation" is probably not the remedy you are looking for" (https://ssrn.com/abstract=2972
855). Duke Law and Technology Review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2972855 (https://doi.org/10.213
9%2Fssrn.2972855). SSRN 2972855 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=
2972855).
73. Frimin, Michael (29 March 2018). "Five benefits GDPR compliance will bring to your
business" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/03/29/five-benefits-gdpr-co
mpliance-will-bring-to-your-business/#3c8e415f482f). Forbes. Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20180912054700/https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/03/29/five-b
enefits-gdpr-compliance-will-bring-to-your-business/#3c8e415f482f#3c8e415f482f) from the
original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
74. Butterworth, Trevor (23 May 2018). "Europe's tough new digital privacy law should be a
model for US policymakers" (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/3/26/17164022/gdpr-eu
rope-privacy-rules-facebook-data-protection-eu-cambridge). Vox. Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20180912054623/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/3/26/17164022/gdpr-e
urope-privacy-rules-facebook-data-protection-eu-cambridge) from the original on 12
September 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
75. Jaffe, Justin; Hautala, Laura (25 May 2018). "What the GDPR means for Facebook, the EU
and you" (https://www.cnet.com/how-to/what-gdpr-means-for-facebook-google-the-eu-us-an
d-you/). CNET. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180912091915/https://www.cnet.co
m/how-to/what-gdpr-means-for-facebook-google-the-eu-us-and-you/) from the original on 12
September 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
76. "Facebook CEO Zuckerberg's Call for GDPR Privacy Laws Raises Questions" (https://www.
cnbc.com/2019/04/01/facebook-ceo-zuckerbergs-call-for-gdpr-privacy-laws-raises-question
s.html). www.cnbc.com. April 2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190404041806/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/01/facebook-ceo-zuckerbergs-call-for-gdpr-privacy-laws-rais
es-questions.html) from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
77. Tiku, Nitasha (19 March 2018). "Europe's new privacy law will change the web, and more"
(https://www.wired.com/story/europes-new-privacy-law-will-change-the-web-and-more/).
Wired. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20181015205629/https://www.wired.com/story/
europes-new-privacy-law-will-change-the-web-and-more/) from the original on 15 October
2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
78. 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" (http
s://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/25/today-a-new-eu-law-transf
orms-privacy-rights-for-everyone-without-edward-snowden-it-might-never-have-happene
d/?). The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20181011173700/https://
www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/25/today-a-new-eu-law-transfor
ms-privacy-rights-for-everyone-without-edward-snowden-it-might-never-have-happened/)
from the original on 11 October 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
79. Stallman, Richard (3 April 2018). "A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe" (http
s://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-bi
g-tech-surveillance). The Guardian. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2018091209192
3/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-priva
cy-big-tech-surveillance) from the original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September
2018.
80. Afifi-Sabet, Keumars (3 May 2018). "Scammers are using GDPR email alerts to conduct
phishing attacks" (http://www.itpro.co.uk/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/31058/sca
mmers-are-using-gdpr-email-alerts-to-conduct). IT PRO. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20180526041641/http://www.itpro.co.uk/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/31058/s
cammers-are-using-gdpr-email-alerts-to-conduct) from the original on 26 May 2018.
Retrieved 25 May 2018.
81. "EU gov't and public health sites are lousy with adtech, study finds" (http://social.techcrunch.
com/2019/03/18/eu-govt-and-public-health-sites-lousy-with-adtech-study-finds/).
TechCrunch. 18 March 2019. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
82. "EU citizens being tracked on sensitive government websites" (https://www.ft.com/content/6d
bacf74-471b-11e9-b168-96a37d002cd3). Financial Times. 18 March 2019. Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20190319130253/https://www.ft.com/content/6dbacf74-471b-11e9-b16
8-96a37d002cd3) from the original on 19 March 2019. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
83. "Fall asleep in seconds by listening to a soothing voice read the EU's new GDPR
legislation" (https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17413390/gdpr-legislation-asleep-in-secon
ds-listening-meditation-app-peter-jefferson). The Verge. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20180617015346/https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17413390/gdpr-legislation-asleep-in
-seconds-listening-meditation-app-peter-jefferson) from the original on 17 June 2018.
Retrieved 16 June 2018.
84. "How Europe's GDPR Regulations Became a Meme" (https://www.wired.com/story/gdpr-me
mes/). Wired. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180618002541/https://www.wired.co
m/story/gdpr-memes/) from the original on 18 June 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
85. "The Internet Created a GDPR-Inspired Meme Using Privacy Policies" (https://www.adweek.
com/digital/the-internet-created-a-gdpr-inspired-meme-using-privacy-policies/). Adweek.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180617221720/https://www.adweek.com/digital/the
-internet-created-a-gdpr-inspired-meme-using-privacy-policies/) from the original on 17 June
2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
86. Burgess, Matt. "Help, my lightbulbs are dead! How GDPR became bigger than Beyonce" (htt
ps://www.wired.co.uk/article/happy-gdpr-day-gdpr-hall-of-shame). Wired.co.uk. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20180619193137/https://www.wired.co.uk/article/happy-gdpr-day-
gdpr-hall-of-shame) from the original on 19 June 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
87. "Here Are Some of the Worst Attempts At Complying with GDPR" (https://motherboard.vice.c
om/en_us/article/qvnv9x/gdpr-compliance-companies-different-rules). Motherboard. 25 May
2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180618002725/https://motherboard.vice.com/
en_us/article/qvnv9x/gdpr-compliance-companies-different-rules) from the original on 18
June 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
88. "What Percentage of Your Software Vulnerabilities Have GDPR Implications?" (https://www.
hackerone.com/sites/default/files/2018-01/GDPR%20Implications-ebook.pdf) (PDF).
HackerOne. 16 January 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180706162027/http
s://www.hackerone.com/sites/default/files/2018-01/GDPR%20Implications-ebook.pdf) (PDF)
from the original on 6 July 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
89. "The Data Protection Officer (DPO): Everything You Need to Know" (https://www.slideshare.
net/hacker0x01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-data-protection-officer-role).
Cranium and HackerOne. 20 March 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201808311
65003/https://www.slideshare.net/hacker0x01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-data-
protection-officer-role) from the original on 31 August 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
90. "What might bug bounty programs look like under the GDPR?" (https://iapp.org/news/a/what-
might-bug-bounty-programs-look-like-under-the-gdpr/). The International Association of
Privacy Professionals (IAPP). 27 March 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201807
06165037/https://iapp.org/news/a/what-might-bug-bounty-programs-look-like-under-the-gdp
r/) from the original on 6 July 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
91. Momen, N.; Hatamian, M.; Fritsch, L. (November 2019). "Did App Privacy Improve After the
GDPR?" (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-75508). IEEE Security Privacy.
17 (6): 10–20. doi:10.1109/MSEC.2019.2938445 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMSEC.2019.2
938445). ISSN 1558-4046 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1558-4046). S2CID 203699369 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203699369).
92. Hatamian, Majid; Momen, Nurul; Fritsch, Lothar; Rannenberg, Kai (2019), Naldi, Maurizio;
Italiano, Giuseppe F.; Rannenberg, Kai; Medina, Manel (eds.), "A Multilateral Privacy Impact
Analysis Method for Android Apps" (https://zenodo.org/record/3248889), Privacy
Technologies and Policy, Springer International Publishing, vol. 11498, pp. 87–106,
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-21752-5_7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-030-21752-5_7),
ISBN 978-3-030-21751-8, S2CID 184483219 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:184
483219), archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200712060716/https://zenodo.org/record/
3248889) from the original on 12 July 2020, retrieved 3 June 2020
 93. Moen, Gro Mette, Ailo Krogh Ravna, and Finn Myrstad. "Deceived by design - How tech
companies use dark patterns to discourage us from exercising our rights to privacy" (https://fi
l.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-27-deceived-by-design-final.pdf)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20191220000426/https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-conte
nt/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-27-deceived-by-design-final.pdf) 20 December 2019 at the
Wayback Machine. 2018. Report by the Consumer Council of Norway / Forbrukerrådet.
94. "Instapaper is temporarily shutting off access for European users due to GDPR" (https://ww
w.theverge.com/2018/5/23/17387146/instapaper-gdpr-europe-access-shut-down-privacy-ch
anges). The Verge. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180524013709/https://www.the
verge.com/2018/5/23/17387146/instapaper-gdpr-europe-access-shut-down-privacy-change
s) from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
95. "Unroll.me to close to EU users saying it can't comply with GDPR" (https://techcrunch.com/2
018/05/05/unroll-me-to-close-to-eu-users-saying-it-cant-comply-with-gdpr/). TechCrunch. 5
May 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180530035124/https://techcrunch.com/2
018/05/05/unroll-me-to-close-to-eu-users-saying-it-cant-comply-with-gdpr/) from the original
on 30 May 2018. Retrieved 29 May 2018.
96. Hern, Alex; Waterson, Jim (24 May 2018). "Sites block users, shut down activities and flood
inboxes as GDPR rules loom" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/sites-
block-eu-users-before-gdpr-takes-effect). The Guardian. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20180524222426/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/sites-block-eu-u
sers-before-gdpr-takes-effect) from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
97. "Blocking 500 Million Users Is Easier Than Complying With Europe's New Rules" (https://w
ww.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-25/blocking-500-million-users-is-easier-than-com
plying-with-gdpr). Bloomberg L.P. 25 May 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2018
0525235055/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-25/blocking-500-million-use
rs-is-easier-than-complying-with-gdpr) from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May
2018.
98. "U.S. News Outlets Block European Readers Over New Privacy Rules" (https://www.nytime
s.com/2018/05/25/business/media/europe-privacy-gdpr-us.html). The New York Times. 25
May 2018. ISSN 0362-4331 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331). Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20180526025851/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/business/media/e
urope-privacy-gdpr-us.html) from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
99. "Look: Here's what EU citizens see now that GDPR has landed" (http://adage.com/article/dig
ital/eu-citizens-gdpr-day/313655/). Advertising Age. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
180525220203/http://adage.com/article/digital/eu-citizens-gdpr-day/313655/) from the
original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
100. Tiku, Nitasha (24 May 2018). "Why Your Inbox Is Crammed Full of Privacy Policies" (https://
www.wired.com/story/how-a-new-era-of-privacy-took-over-your-email-inbox/). Wired.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180524214938/https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-
new-era-of-privacy-took-over-your-email-inbox/) from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved
25 May 2018.
101. Chen, Brian X. (23 May 2018). "Getting a Flood of G.D.P.R.-Related Privacy Policy
Updates? Read Them" (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/technology/personaltech/what-
you-should-look-for-europe-data-law.html). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180524194430/h
ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/technology/personaltech/what-you-should-look-for-euro
pe-data-law.html) from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
102. Lanxon, Nate (25 May 2018). "Blocking 500 Million Users Is Easier Than Complying With
Europe's New Rules" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-25/blocking-500-
million-users-is-easier-than-complying-with-gdpr). Bloomberg. Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20180525125509/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-25/blocking-5
00-million-users-is-easier-than-complying-with-gdpr) from the original on 25 May 2018.
Retrieved 25 May 2018.
103. "GDPR mayhem: Programmatic ad buying plummets in Europe" (https://digiday.com/media/
gdpr-mayhem-programmatic-ad-buying-plummets-europe/). Digiday. 25 May 2018. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180525213159/https://digiday.com/media/gdpr-mayhem-prog
rammatic-ad-buying-plummets-europe/) from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May
2018.
104. Skiera, Bernd (2022). The impact of the GDPR on the online advertising market (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/1322186902). Klaus Miller, Yuxi Jin, Lennart Kraft, René Laub, Julia
Schmitt. Frankfurt am Main. ISBN 978-3-9824173-0-1. OCLC 1322186902 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/oclc/1322186902).
105. "Press corner" (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en). European
Commission - European Commission. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202012271938
56/https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en) from the original on 27 December
2020. Retrieved 18 September 2020.
106. "Your rights matter: Data protection and privacy - Fundamental Rights Survey" (https://fra.eur
opa.eu/en/publication/2020/fundamental-rights-survey-data-protection). European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights. 12 June 2020. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200
925141211/https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/fundamental-rights-survey-data-protecti
on) from the original on 25 September 2020. Retrieved 18 September 2020.
107. "GDPR: noyb.eu filed four complaints over 'forced consent' against Google, Instagram,
WhatsApp and Facebook" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180525211528/https://noyb.eu/wp
-content/uploads/2018/05/pa_forcedconsent_en.pdf) (PDF). NOYB.eu. 25 May 2018.
Archived from the original (https://noyb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/pa_forcedconsent_e
n.pdf) (PDF) on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
108. "Facebook and Google hit with $8.8 billion in lawsuits on day one of GDPR" (https://www.th
everge.com/2018/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-gdpr-lawsuit-max-schrems-europe). The
Verge. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180525235251/https://www.theverge.com/20
18/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-gdpr-lawsuit-max-schrems-europe) from the original on
25 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
109. "Max Schrems files first cases under GDPR against Facebook and Google" (https://www.iris
htimes.com/business/technology/max-schrems-files-first-cases-under-gdpr-against-facebook
-and-google-1.3508177). The Irish Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201805252
01624/https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/max-schrems-files-first-cases-under-
gdpr-against-facebook-and-google-1.3508177) from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved
26 May 2018.
110. "Facebook, Google face first GDPR complaints over 'forced consent' " (https://techcrunch.co
m/2018/05/25/facebook-google-face-first-gdpr-complaints-over-forced-consent/).
TechCrunch. 25 May 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180526030448/https://t
echcrunch.com/2018/05/25/facebook-google-face-first-gdpr-complaints-over-forced-consen
t/) from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
111. Meyer, David. "Google, Facebook hit with serious GDPR complaints: Others will be soon" (h
ttps://www.zdnet.com/article/google-facebook-hit-with-serious-gdpr-complaints-others-will-b
e-soon/). ZDNet. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180528090334/https://www.zdnet.
com/article/google-facebook-hit-with-serious-gdpr-complaints-others-will-be-soon/) from the
original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
112. Fox, Chris (21 January 2019). "Google hit with £44m GDPR fine" (https://www.bbc.com/new
s/technology-46944696). BBC News. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201901212312
40/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46944696) from the original on 21 January 2019.
Retrieved 14 June 2019.
113. Porter, Jon (21 January 2019). "Google fined €50 million for GDPR violation in France" (http
s://www.theverge.com/2019/1/21/18191591/google-gdpr-fine-50-million-euros-data-consent-
cnil). The Verge. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190610191257/https://www.thever
ge.com/2019/1/21/18191591/google-gdpr-fine-50-million-euros-data-consent-cnil) from the
original on 10 June 2019. Retrieved 14 June 2019.
114. Masnick, Mike (19 November 2018). "Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To
Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law" (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2
0181114/01491541047/yet-another-gdpr-disaster-journalists-ordered-to-hand-over-secret-so
urces-under-data-protection-law.shtml). Archived (https://archive.today/20181120174443/htt
ps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181114/01491541047/yet-another-gdpr-disaster-journalists
-ordered-to-hand-over-secret-sources-under-data-protection-law.shtml) from the original on
20 November 2018. Retrieved 20 November 2018.
115. Bălăiți, George (9 November 2018). "English Translation of the Letter from the Romanian
Data Protection Authority to RISE Project" (https://www.occrp.org/en/16-other/other-articles/8
876-english-translation-of-the-letter-from-the-romanian-data-protection-authority-to-rise-proje
ct). Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. Archived (https://archive.today/2018
1109210657/https://www.occrp.org/en/16-other/other-articles/8876-english-translation-of-the
-letter-from-the-romanian-data-protection-authority-to-rise-project) from the original on 9
November 2018. Retrieved 20 November 2018.
116. " 'Intention to fine British Airways £183.39m under GDPR for data breach' " (https://ico.org.uk/
about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2019/07/ico-announces-intention-to-fine-brit
ish-airways/). ICO. 8 July 2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201206171628/http
s://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2019/07/ico-announces-intenti
on-to-fine-british-airways/) from the original on 6 December 2020. Retrieved 22 December
2020.
117. Whittaker, Zack (11 September 2018). "British Airways breach caused by credit card
skimming malware, researchers say" (https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/11/british-airways-bre
ach-caused-by-credit-card-skimming-malware-researchers-say/). TechCrunch. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20181210063331/https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/11/british-airway
s-breach-caused-by-credit-card-skimming-malware-researchers-say/) from the original on 10
December 2018. Retrieved 9 December 2018.
118. "British Airways boss apologises for 'malicious' data breach" (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
england-london-45440850?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c1xp19421ez
t/cyber-crime&link_location=live-reporting-story). BBC News. 7 September 2018. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20181015164522/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-londo
n-45440850?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsiteproxy.ruqli.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fc1x
p19421ezt%2Fcyber-crime&link_location=live-reporting-story) from the original on 15
October 2018. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
119. Sweney, Mark (8 July 2019). "BA faces £183m fine over passenger data breach" (https://ww
w.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/08/ba-fine-customer-data-breach-british-airways). The
Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0261-3077). Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20190708083104/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/08/ba-fi
ne-customer-data-breach-british-airways) from the original on 8 July 2019. Retrieved 8 July
2019.
120. "British Airways faces record £183m fine for data breach" (https://www.bbc.com/news/busine
ss-48905907). BBC News. 8 July 2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190708064
601/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48905907) from the original on 8 July 2019.
Retrieved 8 July 2019.
121. "ICO fines British Airways £20m for data breach affecting more than 400,000 customers" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20201016173648/https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-event
s/news-and-blogs/2020/10/ico-fines-british-airways-20m-for-data-breach-affecting-more-than
-400-000-customers/). ICO. 16 October 2020. Archived from the original (https://ico.org.uk/ab
out-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2020/10/ico-fines-british-airways-20m-for-data
-breach-affecting-more-than-400-000-customers/) on 16 October 2020. Retrieved
22 December 2020.
122. Vinocur, Nicholas (27 December 2019). " 'We have a huge problem': European regulator
despairs over lack of enforcement" (https://www.politico.eu/article/we-have-a-huge-problem-
european-regulator-despairs-over-lack-of-enforcement/). Politico. Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20191228111507/https://www.politico.eu/article/we-have-a-huge-problem-europ
ean-regulator-despairs-over-lack-of-enforcement/) from the original on 28 December 2019.
Retrieved 6 May 2020.
123. Ryan, Johnny (31 January 2023). "Europe-wide overhaul of GDPR monitoring triggered by
ICCL" (https://www.iccl.ie/digital-data/europe-wide-overhaul-of-gdpr-monitoring-triggered-by-
iccl/). Irish Council for Civil Liberties. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2023040607580
9/https://www.iccl.ie/digital-data/europe-wide-overhaul-of-gdpr-monitoring-triggered-by-iccl/)
from the original on 6 April 2023. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
124. Alizadeh, Fatemeh; Jakobi, Timo; Boldt, Jens; Stevens, Gunnar (2019). "GDPR-Reality
Check on the Right to Access Data". Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019 on -
MuC'19. New York: ACM Press: 811–814. doi:10.1145/3340764.3344913 (https://doi.org/10.
1145%2F3340764.3344913). ISBN 978-1-4503-7198-8. S2CID 202159324 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:202159324).
125. Alizadeh, Fatemeh; Jakobi, Timo; Boden, Alexander; Stevens, Gunnar; Boldt, Jens (2020).
"GDPR Reality Check–Claiming and Investigating Personally Identifiable Data from
Companies" (https://eusec20.cs.uchicago.edu/eusec20-Alizadeh.pdf) (PDF). EuroUSEC.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200617145507/https://eusec20.cs.uchicago.edu/eu
sec20-Alizadeh.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 17 June 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
126. Human, Soheil; Cech, Florian (2021). Zimmermann, Alfred; Howlett, Robert J.; Jain, Lakhmi
C. (eds.). "A Human-Centric Perspective on Digital Consenting: The Case of GAFAM" (http
s://epub.wu.ac.at/7523/1/HCIS2020_A%20Human-centric%20Perspective%20on%20Digita
l%20Consenting_The%20Case%20of%20GAFAM_Soheil%20Human_Florian%20Cech.pd
f) (PDF). Human Centred Intelligent Systems. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies.
Singapore: Springer. 189: 139–159. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5784-2_12 (https://doi.org/10.1
007%2F978-981-15-5784-2_12). ISBN 978-981-15-5784-2. S2CID 214699040 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:214699040). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210414
233129/https://epub.wu.ac.at/7523/1/HCIS2020_A%20Human-centric%20Perspective%20o
n%20Digital%20Consenting_The%20Case%20of%20GAFAM_Soheil%20Human_Floria
n%20Cech.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 23 August 2020.
127. Christakis and Propp, Theodore and Kenneth (8 March 2021). "How Europe's Intelligence
Services Aim to Avoid the EU's Highest Court—and What It Means for the United States" (htt
ps://www.lawfareblog.com/how-europes-intelligence-services-aim-avoid-eus-highest-court-a
nd-what-it-means-united-states). Lawfare. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202103132
14713/https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-europes-intelligence-services-aim-avoid-eus-highe
st-court-and-what-it-means-united-states) from the original on 13 March 2021. Retrieved
13 March 2021.
128. Browne, Ryan (18 January 2022). "Fines for breaches of EU privacy law spike sevenfold to
$1.2 billion, as Big Tech bears the brunt" (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/fines-for-breach
es-of-eu-gdpr-privacy-law-spike-sevenfold.html). CNBC. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20220209162741/https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/fines-for-breaches-of-eu-gdpr-privac
y-law-spike-sevenfold.html) from the original on 9 February 2022. Retrieved 9 February
2022.
129. Roberts, Jeff John (25 May 2018). "The GDPR Is in Effect: Should U.S. Companies Be
Afraid?" (http://fortune.com/2018/05/24/the-gdpr-is-in-effect-should-u-s-companies-be-afrai
d/). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180528010135/http://fortune.com/2018/05/24/th
e-gdpr-is-in-effect-should-u-s-companies-be-afraid/) from the original on 28 May 2018.
Retrieved 28 May 2018.
130. "Commentary: California's New Data Privacy Law Could Begin a Regulatory Disaster" (htt
p://fortune.com/2018/10/23/california-data-privacy-law-gdpr/). Fortune. Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20190410052357/http://fortune.com/2018/10/23/california-data-privacy-law-
gdpr/) from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
131. "California Unanimously Passes Historic Privacy Bill" (https://www.wired.com/story/californi
a-unanimously-passes-historic-privacy-bill). Wired. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
180629224553/https://www.wired.com/story/california-unanimously-passes-historic-privacy-
bill/) from the original on 29 June 2018. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
132. "Marketers and tech companies confront California's version of GDPR" (http://adage.com/arti
cle/digital/california-passed-version-gdpr/314079/). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
180629211518/http://adage.com/article/digital/california-passed-version-gdpr/314079/) from
the original on 29 June 2018. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
133. "Virginia passes the Consumer Data Protection Act" (https://iapp.org/news/a/virginia-passes-
the-consumer-data-protection-act/). International Association of Privacy Professionals. 3
March 2021. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210830135050/https://iapp.org/news/
a/virginia-passes-the-consumer-data-protection-act/) from the original on 30 August 2021.
Retrieved 26 August 2021.
134. "Colorado Privacy Act becomes law" (https://iapp.org/news/a/colorado-privacy-act-becomes-
law/). International Association of Privacy Professionals. 8 July 2021. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20210826131532/https://iapp.org/news/a/colorado-privacy-act-becomes-la
w/) from the original on 26 August 2021. Retrieved 26 August 2021.
135. "KİŞİSEL VERİLERİ KORUMA KURUMU | KVKK | History" (https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/Icerik/66
34/History). www.kvkk.gov.tr. Retrieved 19 December 2020.
136. "China's New National Privacy Law: The PIPL - Privacy - China" (https://www.mondaq.com/
china/data-protection/1137330/china39s-new-national-privacy-law-the-pipl).
www.mondaq.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220209162347/https://www.mo
ndaq.com/china/data-protection/1137330/china39s-new-national-privacy-law-the-pipl) from
the original on 9 February 2022. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
137. Portal, S. M. E. "New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP)" (https://www.kmu.admin.ch/k
mu/en/home/fakten-und-trends/digitalisierung/datenschutz/neues-datenschutzgesetz-revds
g.html). www.kmu.admin.ch. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230325204902/https://
www.kmu.admin.ch/kmu/en/home/fakten-und-trends/digitalisierung/datenschutz/neues-date
nschutzgesetz-revdsg.html) from the original on 25 March 2023. Retrieved 25 March 2023.
138. "Data protection reform: Council adopts position at first reading – Consilium" (http://www.con
silium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/04/08-data-protection-reform-first-reading/).
Europa (web portal). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171006062440/http://www.con
silium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/04/08-data-protection-reform-first-reading/)
from the original on 6 October 2017. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
139. Adoption of the Council's position at first reading (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-regulati
on-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-on-the-protection-of-natural-persons-with-
r.html) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171125221345/http://www.votewatch.eu/en/t
erm8-regulation-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-on-the-protection-of-natural-
persons-with-r.html) 25 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Votewatch.eu
140. Written procedure (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/99614/Procedure_ecrite_GDPR_
EN.docx) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171201053947/http://www.europarl.europ
a.eu/cmsdata/99614/Procedure_ecrite_GDPR_EN.docx) 1 December 2017 at the Wayback
Machine, 8 April 2016, Council of the European Union
141. "Data protection reform – Parliament approves new rules fit for the digital era – News –
European Parliament" (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160407IPR21
776/Data-protection-reform-Parliament-approves-new-rules-fit-for-the-digital-era). 14 April
2016. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160417174838/http://www.europarl.europa.e
u/news/en/news-room/20160407IPR21776/Data-protection-reform-Parliament-approves-ne
w-rules-fit-for-the-digital-era) from the original on 17 April 2016. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
142. "General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entered into force in the EEA" (http://www.efta.
int/EEA/news/General-Data-Protection-Regulation-GDPR-entered-force-EEA-509576).
EFTA. 20 July 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20181001030953/http://www.eft
a.int/EEA/news/General-Data-Protection-Regulation-GDPR-entered-force-EEA-509576)
from the original on 1 October 2018. Retrieved 30 September 2018.
143. Kolsrud, Kjetil (10 July 2018). "GDPR – 20. juli er datoen!" (http://rett24.no/articles/gdpr--20.j
uli-er-datoen). Rett24. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180713133407/http://rett24.n
o/articles/gdpr--20.juli-er-datoen) from the original on 13 July 2018. Retrieved 13 July 2018.
144. "Digital Single Market" (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en). Digital Single Market.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171008020455/https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-m
arket/en) from the original on 8 October 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2017.
145. "What does the ePrivacy Regulation mean for the online industry? – ePrivacy" (https://www.
eprivacy.eu/en/about-us/news-press/news-detail/article/what-does-the-eprivacy-regulation-
mean-for-the-online-industry/). www.eprivacy.eu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2018
0522181550/https://www.eprivacy.eu/en/about-us/news-press/news-detail/article/what-does-
the-eprivacy-regulation-mean-for-the-online-industry/) from the original on 22 May 2018.
Retrieved 26 May 2018.
146. "Council position and findings on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR), 19 December 2019" (https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14994-201
9-REV-1/en/pdf). Consilium. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20191223121437/https://
data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14994-2019-REV-1/en/pdf) from the original on
23 December 2019. Retrieved 23 December 2019.

External links
General Data Protection Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679)
consolidated text on EUR-Lex
General Data Protection Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj) initial
legal act in the OJEU
Data protection (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection_en), European
Commission
Procedure 2012/0011/COD (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/201286), EUR-Lex
Handbook on European data protection law (http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_upload
s/fra-coe-edps-2018-handbook-data-protection_en.pdf), European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights
 GDPRhub - A free and open wiki that allows anyone to find and share GDPR insights across
Europe. (https://gdprhub.eu)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Data_Protection_Regulation&oldid=1154694061"