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.

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 35 percent of organizations in the United States and 40 percent of organizations in the United Kingdom pay higher costs for international data transfers due to data privacy regulations, but they also find it manageable. Furthermore, approximately 35 percent of respondents from both countries think the regulations encourage businesses by guaranteeing that the data will be safeguarded in other countries.

This dataset is about books. It has 4 rows and is filtered where the book is Data protection : a practical guide to UK and EU law. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

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.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information: The number of individuals of all ages who were prescribed contraceptives in the financial years 2019-2020, 2021-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 in community settings (GP surgeries and pharmacies) broken down by contraceptive method. I would also like the proportion these represent of contraception users. For example, X proportion of those on contraception are using the Mirena coil. If possible, I would also appreciate if this were broken down by age of those prescriptions too. To clarify, I mean patients. I also mean both contraceptive drugs and appliances/devices Response A copy of the information is attached. Please read the following information to ensure correct understanding of the data. Fewer than five Please be aware that I have decided not to release the full details where the total number of individuals falls below five. This is because the individuals could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. This information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 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. Please click the weblink to see the exemption in full: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) - NHS Prescription Services process prescriptions for Pharmacy Contractors, Appliance Contractors, Dispensing Doctors, and Personal Administration with information then used to make payments to pharmacists and appliance contractors in England for prescriptions dispensed in primary care settings (other arrangements are in place for making payments to Dispensing Doctors and Personal Administration). This involves processing over one billion prescription items and payments totalling over £9 billion each year. The information gathered from this process is then used to provide information on costs and trends in prescribing in England and Wales to over 25,000 registered NHS and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) users. Data Source: ePACT2 - Data in ePACT2 is sourced from the NHSBSA Data Warehouse and is derived from products prescribed on prescriptions and dispensed in the Community. The data captured from prescription processing is used to calculate reimbursement and remuneration. It includes items prescribed in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Guernsey/Alderney, Jersey, and Isle of Man which have been dispensed in the community in England. English prescribing that has been dispensed in Wales, Scotland, Guernsey/Alderney, Jersey, and Isle of Man is also included. The data excludes: • Items not dispensed, disallowed and those returned to the contractor for further clarification. • Prescriptions prescribed and dispensed in prisons, hospitals, and private prescriptions. • Items prescribed but not presented for dispensing or not submitted to NHS Prescription Services by the dispenser. Dataset - The data is limited to presentations prescribed in BNF sections 0703 Contraceptives and BNF section 2104 Contraceptive Devices. Data is presented at BNF Sub Paragraph and BNF Presentation level. Time Period - Financial years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 (April 2023 - January 2024). Data is currently available up to and including January 2024. Organisation Data - The data is for prescribing in England regardless of where dispensed in the community. British National Formulary (BNF) Sub Paragraph and Presentation Code – The BNF Code is a 15-digit code in which the first seven digits are allocated according to the categories in the BNF, and the last eight digits represent the medicinal product, form, strength and the link to the generic equivalent product. NHS Prescription Services has created pseudo BNF chapters, which are not published, for items not included in BNF chapters 1 to 15. Most of such items are dressings and appliances which NHS Prescription Services has classified into four pseudo BNF chapters (20 to 23). Patient Identification - Where patient identifiable figures have been reported they are based on the information captured during the prescription processing activities. Please note, patient details cannot be captured from every prescription form and based on the criteria used for this analysis, patient information (NHS number) was only available for 98.28% of prescription items. The unique patient count figures are based on a distinct count of NHS number as captured from the prescription image. Patient ages are based on the age as captured from the prescription image and relates to the patient's age at the time of prescribing/dispensing. Please note it is possible that a single patient may be included in the results for more than one age band where a patient has received prescribing at different ages during a financial year. The figures for the number of identifiable patients should not be combined and reported at any other level than provided as this may result in the double counting of patients. For example, a single patient could appear in the results for multiple presentations or both financial years. Patient Age - Shows the age of the patient, if recorded. Data Quality for patient age - NHSBSA stores information on the age of the recipient of each prescription as it was read by computer from images of paper prescriptions or as attached to messages sent through the electronic prescription system. The NHSBSA does not validate, verify or manually check the resulting information as part of the routine prescription processing. There are some data quality issues with the ages of patients prescribed the products. The NHSBSA holds prescription images for 18 months. A sample of the data was compared to the images of the paper prescription forms from which the data was generated where these images are still available. These checks revealed issues in the reliability of age data, in particular the quality of the stored age data was poor for patients recorded as aged two years and under. When considering the accuracy of age data, it is expected that a small number of prescriptions may be allocated against any given patient age incorrectly. Application of Disclosure Control to information services (prescriptions) products- ePACT 2 data is not published statistics - it is available to authorised NHS users who are subject to Caldicott Guardian approval. We have no plans to apply disclosure control to data released to ePACT 2 users. These users are under an obligation to protect the anonymity of any patients when reusing this data or releasing derived information publicly. All requests that fall under the FOI process are subject to the NHSBSA Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation Standard. The application of the techniques described in the standard is judged on a case-by-case basis (by NHSBSA Information Governance) in respect of what techniques should be applied. The ICO typically rules on a case-by-case basis too so each case or challenge or appeal is judged on its own merits. FOI rules apply to data that we hold as part of our normal course of business.

This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose claimant 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 claimant. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Breach of Patient confidentiality Please note that the identification of claimants is also a breach of the common law duty of confidence. A claimant who has been identified could make a claim against the NHSBSA or yourself for the disclosure of the confidential information. The information requested is therefore being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 41(1) ‘Information provided in confidence’ of the Freedom of Information Act. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/41

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:

DP (Data Protection Act) / SAR (Subject Access Request) - In time - (YTD)

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.

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.

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

United Kingdom UK: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. United Kingdom UK: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Dec 2013 (Median) to 2017, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. United Kingdom UK: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United Kingdom – Table UK.World Bank.WDI: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

Snapshot img

Data Protection As A Service Market Size 2024-2028

The data protection as a service (DPaaS) market size is forecast to increase by USD 87.57 billion at a CAGR of 46.02% between 2023 and 2028.

The market is experiencing significant growth due to the rising adoption of this solution among various industries in the US. The exponential growth in the volume of data being generated and collected by enterprises necessitates strong data protection measures. Deployment modes like hosted services and hybrid cloud have made DPaaS more accessible and cost-effective for businesses. In-house security teams are increasingly turning to DPaaS to enhance their data security capabilities.
Disaster recovery is another key area where DPaaS is gaining traction, providing businesses with a reliable and efficient backup and recovery solution. Despite its benefits, the high cost of DPaaS remains a challenge for some enterprises. Overall, the DPaaS market is poised for continued growth as more organizations recognize the importance of securing their data in the digital age.

What will be the Data Protection As A Service Market Size During the Forecast Period?

Request Free Sample

The market refers to the provision of managed data security services through cloud-based solutions. These services enable organizations to safeguard their data from cyberattacks and data breaches, ensuring business continuity and compliance with data protection regulations. In the US, the adoption of DPaaS is on the rise as businesses seek to enhance their IT infrastructure's security and scalability. DPaaS offers several benefits to organizations, including scalability, management, and recovery options. Scalability allows businesses to easily expand their data protection capabilities as they grow, while management simplifies the process of securing data through centralized control. Recovery options ensure that data can be quickly restored in the event of a cyberattack or data loss. Cloud storage is a critical component of DPaaS, providing organizations with secure, offsite data storage. DPaaS providers offer advanced security features, such as encryption, access controls, and intrusion detection, to protect data in the cloud. Data breaches and cyberattacks pose significant risks to organizations, leading to financial losses, reputational damage, and legal consequences.
Moreover, DPaaS helps mitigate these risks by providing strong security measures and real-time threat detection and response. DPaaS can be deployed in various modes, including public, private, and hybrid clouds. The choice of deployment mode depends on the organization's size and specific security requirements. Small and medium-sized businesses may prefer public cloud solutions, while larger enterprises may opt for private or hybrid clouds for enhanced security and control. DPaaS is applicable to various industry verticals, including healthcare, finance, retail, and education. These industries handle sensitive data and are subject to stringent data protection regulations. DPaaS providers offer paid databases with threat intelligence and compliance information to help organizations stay informed and comply with regulatory requirements. Next-Generation Technologies: DPaaS solutions leverage next-generation technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), to provide advanced threat detection and response capabilities.
Additionally, these technologies enable DPaaS providers to quickly identify and respond to emerging threats, ensuring that organizations' data remains secure. IT Infrastructure Industry: The IT infrastructure industry is a significant contributor to the growth of the DPaaS market. DPaaS solutions offer businesses a cost-effective and efficient way to enhance their data security capabilities without the need for extensive IT resources or expertise. DPaaS is an essential solution for businesses looking to enhance their data security and ensure business continuity in the face of cyberattacks and data breaches. With its scalability, management, and recovery options, DPaaS offers organizations the flexibility and control they need to protect their data in the cloud. As data security becomes increasingly critical, the adoption of DPaaS is expected to continue growing in the US and beyond.

How is this market segmented and which is the largest segment?

The market 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.

Application

  STaaS
  BaaS
  DRaaS


Business Segment

  Large
  Small and medium


Geography

  North America

    US


  Europe

    Germany
    UK


  APAC

    China
    Japan


  South America



  Middle East and Africa

By Application Insights

The STaaS segment is est

A survey of UK young adults between 18 and 34 years in October 2023 found that ethnic minorities tend to exercise their data protection rights. Around 33 percent of respondents representing ethnic minorities said they had refused to provide their biometric data, compared to 22 percent of white respondents. Similarly, young people of color were more likely to ask an organization to stop using their personal information.