As of February 2025, the largest fine issued for violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the United Kingdom (UK) was more than 22 million euros, received by British Airways in October 2020. Another fine received by Marriott International Inc. in the same month was the second-highest in the UK and amounted to over 20 million euros.

Since the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018, fines have been issued for several types of violations. As of February 2025, the most significant share of penalties was due to companies' non-compliance with general data processing principles. This violation has led to over 2.4 billion euros worth of fines.

As of January 2025, the most significant data privacy violation fine worldwide was for social media giant Meta. In May 2023, the Data Protection Commission (DPC) of Ireland decided to fine the company with 1.2 billion euros or 1.3 billion U.S. dollars. The Chinese vehicle-for rent company Didi Global ranked second. In July 2022, China's data privacy regulator fined the company 8.026 billion Chinese yuan, or 1.19 billion U.S. dollars. The 2021 Amazon fine issued by Luxembourg's data privacy regulation authorities was 877 million U.S. dollars and was the third-biggest data breach fine as of the measured month. The 2019 fine of 575 million U.S. dollars to Equifax followed. In this incident, because of unpatched vulnerabilities, nearly 150 million people were affected, which caused the American consumer credit reporting agency to pay at least 575 million U.S. dollars.

Question 2 National Audit Office (NAO) are the auditors of the NHS Pension Scheme Accounts. The main contact at NAO has not consented to the disclosure and is therefore exempt under 40 subsections 2 and 3A (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as disclosure of this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK GDPR first data protection principle because: a) it is not fair to disclose main contact of the NAO personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the main contact of the NAO. NAO have provided the name of the Auditor General, Gareth Davies Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) currently provide Internal Audit for the NHSBSA. This includes the following areas of NHS pensions for 2023/24: Member Data McCloud and other Legislative Changes . Pensions Annual Allowance Charge Compensation Scheme (PAACCS) My NHS Pensions Portal Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) - The main contact at GIAA has not consented to the disclosure and is therefore exempt under 40 subsections 2 and 3A (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as disclosure of this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK GDPR first data protection principle because: a) it is not fair to disclose main contact of the Government Internal Audit Agency’s personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the main contact of the Government Internal Audit Agency. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Question 3 National Audit Office (NAO) National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SP Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) Governance Team Corporate Services Directorate Government Internal Audit Agency 10 Victoria Street Westminster London SW1H 0NB United Kingdom Question 4

Snapshot img

Banking, Financial Services And Insurance (BFSI) Security Market Size 2024-2028

The banking, financial services and insurance (BFSI) security market size is valued to increase USD 45.03 billion, at a CAGR of 12.16% from 2023 to 2028. Rise in cyber data breaches will drive the banking, financial services and insurance (BFSI) security market.

Major Market Trends & Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 58% growth during the forecast period.
By Delivery Mode - Service segment was valued at USD 23.43 billion in 2022
By Type - Phycial security segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2022

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 139.96 billion
Market Future Opportunities: USD 45.03 billion
CAGR : 12.16%
North America: Largest market in 2022

Market Summary

The market is a dynamic and ever-evolving landscape, shaped by the continuous unfolding of market activities and evolving patterns. With the increasing reliance on digital technologies and the rise of cyber threats, the need for robust security solutions in the BFSI sector has become more critical than ever. According to recent reports, cyber data breaches in the BFSI industry have surged by 68% in the last two years, underscoring the urgency for effective security measures. Meanwhile, the adoption of the internet in the BFSI sector has accelerated, with over 70% of financial institutions now offering online services.
However, this shift to digital comes with a hefty price tag. The cost of implementing technological securities in the BFSI sector is projected to reach USD 15 billion by 2025, presenting both opportunities and challenges for market players. Core technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and blockchain are driving innovation in BFSI security, offering advanced threat detection and prevention capabilities. Regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) are shaping the market, mandating stringent security measures for financial institutions. In summary, the BFSI Security Market is witnessing significant growth, fueled by the increasing adoption of digital technologies, the rising number of cyber threats, and regulatory compliance requirements.
Market players must navigate this complex landscape to capitalize on emerging opportunities and address the challenges that come with them.

What will be the Size of the Banking, Financial Services And Insurance (BFSI) Security Market during the forecast period?

Get Key Insights on Market Forecast (PDF) Request Free Sample

How is the Banking, Financial Services And Insurance (BFSI) Security Market Segmented and what are the key trends of market segmentation?

The banking, financial services and insurance (BFSI) security industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments.

Delivery Mode

  Service
  Solution


Type

  Phycial security
  Cyber security


Geography

  North America

    US
    Canada


  Europe

    Germany
    UK


  APAC

    China


  Rest of World (ROW)

By Delivery Mode Insights

The service segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

The Banking, Financial Services and Insurance (BFSI) sector faces an increasing number of cybersecurity threats, necessitating the adoption of advanced security solutions. According to recent studies, the global BFSI security market is witnessing significant growth, with penetration testing emerging as a prominent service. Penetration testing involves simulating cyber-attacks on financial institutions' systems and infrastructure to identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses. This proactive approach enables banks and financial organizations to address security issues and enhance their overall security posture. Approximately 45% of financial institutions have already implemented penetration testing as part of their security strategy, and this number is projected to increase by 25% in the next two years.

Furthermore, the adoption of encryption algorithms, such as Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and RSA, is on the rise, with over 60% of financial institutions using encryption for data protection. Secure coding practices, multi-factor authentication, and data loss prevention are other essential services gaining traction in the market. Financial crime prevention, including fraud detection systems and anti-money laundering, are also critical areas of focus, with transaction monitoring systems and behavioral biometrics being popular solutions. Compliance regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI

This data provides information on the number of clients who have received and redeemed a foodbank voucher from 2015 to 2018 across Cambridge and the surrounding areas. Included within the XLS file is a breakdown of the recipients of each voucher whether the voucher was for adults or children or both. The data has been provided by Cambridge City Foodbank - https://cambridgecity.foodbank.org.uk/. ‘Note that none of the details provided here can be traced to individual households - the data has been completely anonymised. All low cell counts of below 5, have been rounded up and replaced with a 5. This prevents any breaches of GDPR 2018’

Title: Getting Away With Murder 2025DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29045015Author: Mr. Martin NewboldDate Written: 13th May 2025Contact: martinnewbold@gmail.comDescription:This paper presents a critical legal and ethical analysis of the use of chemical restraint in the UK’s child care system, particularly focusing on the widespread and unregulated administration of psychotropic medication to children in state care. Drawing upon domestic and international legal frameworks—including the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the paper argues that the use of medication as a behavioural control mechanism, rather than for legitimate therapeutic reasons, may constitute a violation of children’s fundamental rights.Building on the legacy of the 2008 Getting Away With Murder report by Scope UK, the paper draws parallels between systemic neglect of disabled adults and the treatment of children in residential and secure settings. It compiles evidence from official reports, parliamentary inquiries, academic research, and serious case reviews to expose institutional failures, policy inertia, and a culture of clinical convenience over compassion.The manuscript explores how poor data governance, lack of consent protocols, and financial incentives linked to Looked After Children (LAC) payments may contribute to the overmedicalisation of vulnerable children. It challenges the assumption that such practices are isolated, arguing instead that they are embedded within a risk-averse, underfunded, and opaque care system. The work calls for urgent reform in oversight, accountability, and the application of trauma-informed care approaches to protect the rights and well-being of children under state responsibility.Sections of this manuscript, including structural formatting and terminology harmonization, were supported by OpenAI's ChatGPT model for scientific writing guidance. All conceptual content, original ideas, and technical formulations remain the author's.

I can confirm that this information is held by the NHSBSA as it is included in the medical report received from the medical assessment supplier. The name of the medical assessor is redacted before this report is disclosed to the claimant or their representative. Given this will allow the medical assessor to be identified, this information would not be disclosed under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3A (a) of the Freedom of Information Act. Disclosure of the name and location is likely to result in considerable distress to the medical assessor. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK GDPR first data protection principle, as the medical assessor has not consented to this disclosure. Therefore, this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3A (a) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose medical assessors’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the medical assessor.

Thank you for your request for information about the following: Request You asked us: ‘I require the following under my rights in the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000: • The full name and professional registration number of the independent medical assessor who reviewed or is currently reviewing my claim • The name and registered address of the organisation/company employing them • Details of who owns and/or controls that organisation, including parent companies • Details of who funded the assessor’s work on my case and the terms of payment (hourly, per case, etc.) The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) received your request on 11 August 2025. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Our response I can confirm that the NHSBSA holds some of the information you have requested and a copy of the information. Question 1 - The full name and professional registration number of the independent medical assessor who reviewed or is currently reviewing my claim Name(s) The following response does not relate to a specific claim or claimant. The request is being answered more generally given requests under FOIA are requester-blind, that is to say the identity of the requester is not taken into account when considering a request for information under FOIA. I can confirm that we do hold the names of the medical assessors however, we consider the names of the medical assessor to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the names of the medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. This is because disclosure of their names would result in their identification. As the requested information would allow a medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose their personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into their privacy. The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA has to consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that the name and will identify them, there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle. Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Question 2 - The name and registered address of the organisation/company employing them The prime contractor delivering the service is: Crawford & Company Adjusters (UK) Limited The Hallmark Building 106 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 5JE Question 3 - Details of who owns and/or controls that organisation, including parent companies The parent company is Crawford & Company Adjusters (UK) Limited. Question 4 - Details of who funded the assessor’s work on my case and the terms of payment (hourly, per case, etc.) The NHSBSA administers the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) on behalf of DHSC and contracts a third-party supplier for the provision of medical assessments under the scheme. The third-party supplier is paid by the NHSBSA