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.

A survey conducted in April and May 2023 revealed that around ** percent of the companies that do business in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) found it challenging to adapt to new or changing requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). A further ** percent of the survey respondents said it was challenging to increase the budget because of the changes in the data privacy laws.

A survey conducted in April and May 2023 among companies that do business in the European Union and the United Kingdom (UK) found that over half of the respondents, 53 percent, felt very prepared for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A further 35 percent of the companies believed they were moderately prepared, while 10 percent said they were slightly ready to comply with the EU and UK privacy legislations.

Whilst this some of the requested information is held by the NHSBSA, we have exempted some of the figures under section 40(2) subsections 2 and 3(a) of the FOIA because it is personal data of applicants to the VDPS. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a - it is not fair to disclose individual’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 individual. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Guidance is that information is personal data if it ‘relates to’ an ‘identifiable individual’ regulated by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) or the Data Protection Act 2018. The information relates to personal data of the VDPS claimants and is special category data in the form of health information. As a result, the claimants could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. Online communities exist for those adversely affected by vaccines they have received. This further increases the likelihood that those may be identified by disclosure of this information. Section 40(2) is an absolute, prejudice-based exemption and therefore is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. To comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency data protection 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. The NHSBSA has considered this and does not have the consent of the data subjects to release this information and believes that it would not be possible to obtain consent that meets the threshold in Article 7 of the UK GDPR. The NHSBSA acknowledges that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information to provide the full picture of data held by the NHSBSA; however, we have concluded that disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm and therefore, section 40(2) is engaged. This is because there is a reasonable expectation that patient data processed by the NHSBSA remains confidential, especially special category data. There are no reasonable alternative measures that could meet the legitimate aim. As the information is highly confidential and sensitive, it outweighs the legitimate interest in the information. Section 41 FOIA This information is also exempt under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). This is because the requested information was provided to the NHSBSA in confidence by a third party - another individual, company, public authority or any other type of legal entity. In this instance, details have been provided by the claimants. For Section 41 to be engaged, the following criteria must be fulfilled:

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

Dataset on commits (and repositories) on GitHub making reference to data privacy legislation (covering laws: GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, UK DPA).

The dataset contains:
+ all_commits_info_merged-v2-SHA.csv : commits information as collected from various GitHub REST API calls (all data merged together).
+ repos_info_merged_USED-v2_with_loc.csv: repository information with some calculated data.
+ top-70-repos-commits-for-manual-check_commits-2coders.xlsx: results of the manual coding of the commits of the 70 most popular repositories in dataset.
+ user-rights-ω3.csv: different terms for user rights teriminology in legislation.
+ github_commits_analysis_replication.r: main analysis pipeline covering all RQs in the R programming language.

In order to perform also the initial data collection, the GitHub REST API can be used, collecting data using time intervals, for instance:
https://api.github.com/search/commits?q=%22GDPR%22+committer-date:2018-05-25..2018-05-30&sort=committer-date&order=asc&per_page=100&page=1

This dataset accompanies the following publication, so please cite it accordingly:

Georgia M. Kapitsaki, Maria Papoutsoglou, Evolution of repositories and privacy laws: commit activities in the GDPR and CCPA era, accepted for publication at Elsevier Journal of Systems & Software, 2025.

In September 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission fined Meta Ireland 91 million euros after passwords of social media users were stored in 'plaintext' on Meta's internal systems rather than with cryptographic protection or encryption. In May 2023, the EU fined Meta 1.2 billion euros for violating laws on digital privacy and putting the data of EU citizens at risk through Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers. European privacy legislation is seen as being far stricter than American privacy law, and the sending of EU citizens’ data to the United States resulted in the record breaking penalty being issued to the tech giant. In January 2023, after it was discovered that Meta Platforms had improperly required that users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp accept personalized adverts to use the platforms, the company was issued a 390 million euro fine by the European Commission. EU regulators claim that the social media giant broke the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by including the demand in its terms of service. In addition, Meta was fined 405 million euros by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) in September 2022 for violating Instagram's children's privacy settings. In November 2022, the DPC fined Meta a further 265 million euros for failing to protect their users from data scraping. GDPR violations in 2022 Social media sites and companies are not the only types of online services upon which users' data can potentially be compromised. In 2022, the online service with the biggest fine for violating GDPR was e-commerce and digital powerhouse Amazon, which was issued a 746 million euro fine. Furthermore, in December 2021, Google was penalized 90 million euros for GDPR violations. What are the most common GDPR violations? Since GDPR went into effect in May 2018, fines have been imposed for a variety of reasons. As of June 2022, companies' non-compliance with general data processing principles accounted for the largest share of fines, resulting in over 845 million euros worth of penalties. Insufficient legal basis for data processing was the second most common violation, amounting to 447 million euros in fines.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to health, society and economy, including to the conduct of clinical research. In the European Union (EU), the legal and ethical framework for research is complex and divergent. Many challenges exist in relation to the interplay of the various applicable rules, particularly with respect to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study aimed to gain insights into the experience of key clinical research stakeholders [investigators, ethics committees (ECs), and data protection officers (DPOs)/legal experts working with clinical research sponsors] across the EU and the UK on the main challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. Survey data was analyzed descriptively, and the interviews underwent a framework analysis.Results and conclusionIn total, 191 respondents filled in the survey, of whom fourteen participated in the follow-up interviews. Out of the targeted 28 countries (EU and UK), 25 were represented in the survey. The majority of stakeholders were based in Western Europe. This study empirically elucidated numerous key legal and ethical issues related to GDPR compliance in the context of (cross-border) clinical research. It showed that the lack of legal harmonization remains the biggest challenge in the field, and that it is present not only at the level of the interplay of key EU legislative acts and national implementation of the GDPR, but also when it comes to interpretation at local, regional and institutional levels. Moreover, the role of ECs in data protection was further explored and possible ways forward for its normative delineation were discussed. According to the participants, the pandemic did not bring additional legal challenges. Although practical challenges (for instance, mainly related to the provision of information to patients) were high due to the globally enacted crisis measures, the key problematic issues on (cross-border) health research, interpretations of the legal texts and compliance strategies remained largely the same.

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.

Data De-identification and Pseudonymity Software Market Outlook

The global data de-identification and pseudonymity software market is projected to grow significantly, reaching approximately USD 4.2 billion by 2032, driven primarily by increasing data privacy concerns and stringent regulatory requirements worldwide.

The primary growth factor in the data de-identification and pseudonymity software market is the surge in data breaches and cyber-attacks. With the exponential increase in data generation, organizations are more vulnerable to data breaches and unauthorized access. These security concerns have prompted businesses and governments to invest heavily in robust data protection solutions. Data de-identification and pseudonymity software provide a secure way to anonymize sensitive information, making it less susceptible to malicious activities. As data protection laws become more rigorous, the demand for such technologies will continue to rise, further propelling market growth.

Another significant factor contributing to market growth is the growing awareness and emphasis on data privacy among consumers. In recent years, consumers have become increasingly aware of how their data is being used and the potential risks associated with data misuse. This heightened awareness has put pressure on organizations to adopt comprehensive data protection measures. Data de-identification and pseudonymity software offer a means to protect personal information while still allowing organizations to utilize data for analytics and decision-making. This dual benefit is a key driver for the adoption of these technologies across various sectors.

Moreover, regulatory compliance is a crucial driver for the market. Regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, and various other data protection laws worldwide mandate stringent measures for data protection. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal repercussions. Therefore, organizations are increasingly adopting data de-identification and pseudonymity software to ensure compliance with these regulations. The need for regulatory compliance is expected to sustain market growth in the foreseeable future.

Regionally, North America currently dominates the global data de-identification and pseudonymity software market, accounting for the largest market share. This is attributed to the presence of major technology players, stringent data protection regulations, and high adoption rates of advanced technologies in the region. Europe follows closely, with significant market contributions from countries such as Germany, France, and the UK, driven by robust regulatory frameworks like GDPR. The Asia Pacific region is also expected to witness substantial growth, fueled by rapid digitalization, increasing cybersecurity threats, and growing awareness about data privacy in countries like China, India, and Japan.

Data Masking Tools play a pivotal role in enhancing the security framework of organizations by providing an additional layer of protection for sensitive information. These tools are designed to obscure specific data within a dataset, ensuring that unauthorized users cannot access or decipher the original information. As businesses increasingly rely on data-driven insights, the need for robust data masking solutions becomes more critical. By employing data masking tools, organizations can safely share data across departments or with third-party vendors without compromising privacy. This capability is especially beneficial in industries such as healthcare and finance, where data privacy is paramount. The integration of data masking tools with existing data protection strategies can significantly reduce the risk of data breaches and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.

Component Analysis

The data de-identification and pseudonymity software market can be segmented by component into software and services. The software segment is anticipated to hold the lion's share due to the increasing adoption of data protection solutions across various industries. Software solutions provide automated tools for anonymizing and pseudonymizing data, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards. These solutions are essential for organizations aiming to mitigate the risks associated with data breaches and unauthorized access. As cyber threats continue to evolve, the demand for advanced software solutions is exp

Een Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is een van de manieren om erachter te komen welke privacyrisico’s mensen lopen wanneer informatie over hen wordt verzameld, gebruikt, opgeslagen of gedeeld. Dit helpt de Londense gemeente Barnet problemen te vinden zodat risico’s kunnen worden weggenomen of verlaagd tot een aanvaardbaar niveau. Het bezuinigt ook op inbreuken op de privacy en klachten die de reputatie van de Raad kunnen schaden of leiden tot actie van de Information Commissioner (de waakhond van de regering). De London Borough of Barnet maakt DPIA’s openbaar in zijn Data Charter en de Data Protection Act 2018 en UK GDPR. Een Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is een van de manieren om erachter te komen welke privacyrisico’s mensen lopen wanneer informatie over hen wordt verzameld, gebruikt, opgeslagen of gedeeld. Dit helpt de Londense gemeente Barnet problemen te vinden zodat risico’s kunnen worden weggenomen of verlaagd tot een aanvaardbaar niveau. Het bezuinigt ook op inbreuken op de privacy en klachten die de reputatie van de Raad kunnen schaden of leiden tot actie van de Information Commissioner (de waakhond van de regering).

De London Borough of Barnet maakt DPIA’s openbaar in zijn Data Charter en de Data Protection Act 2018 en UK GDPR.

The FOI response incorrectly stated this information was not held. GMC numbers are included in the medical report received from the medical assessment supplier. The medical assessor does not have any direct contact with any claimant as only the NHSBSA deal directly with the claimant. Therefore, the medical assessor’s personal data is redacted before this medical report is disclosed to the claimant or their representative. The medical assessor can be identified from their GMC number as there is a publicly available register at https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/the-medical-register 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 GMC number will identify the medical assessor there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under FOI. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK GDPR first data protection principle. With regards to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) there have been concerns for the health and safety of medical assessors and staff administering the scheme. Disclosure of the GMC number is likely to result in considerable distress to the medical assessor. 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 Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 In addition, the medical assessor has not consented to this disclosure. Medical Assessors Qualification and Experience I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by the NHS Business Services Authority. The GMC number may be used to access the qualifications and experience on the GMC public register but they are not downloaded and held by the NHSBSA. Even if this information were held by the NHSBSA then the Medical Assessor is likely to be identified from their qualifications and experience. 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 Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full.