Category: ICO Fine

Capita Fined £14m for GDPR Data Breach 

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a £14m fine under the UK GDPR to professional and outsourcing services company Capita. This follows a cyber-attack in March 2023 which saw hackers gain access to 6.6 million people’s personal data; from pension and staff records to the details of customers of organisations Capita supports. For some people, this included details of criminal records and financial data. 

The ICO said Capita “failed to ensure the security of processing of personal data which left it at significant risk”. Capita plc has been fined £8m and Capita Pension Solutions Limited has been fined £6m, giving a combined total of £14m. The original notice of intent totalled £45m. The ICO and Capita have now agreed to a “voluntary settlement” whereby Capita has admitted liability and agreed to pay the fine without appealing.  

Background 

The cyber- attack began when a malicious file was unintentionally downloaded onto an employee device. Despite a high priority security alert being raised within 10 minutes of the breach and some immediate automated action being taken, Capita did not quarantine the device for 58 hours, during which the attacker was able to exploit its systems. Nearly one terabyte of data was exfiltrated. On 31st March 2023, ransomware was deployed onto Capita systems and the hacker reset all user passwords, preventing Capita staff from accessing their systems and network.  

The ICO received at least 93 complaints in relation to this attack. In mitigation, Capita offered 12 months of credit monitoring to affected customers with Experian, as well as setting up a dedicated call centre for those people. It provided weekly updates to us on uptake, with over 260,000 people activating the credit monitoring service. 

ICO Findings 

The ICO investigation found that Capita failed to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to safeguard the data they held. This included: 

  • Failure to prevent privilege escalation and unauthorised lateral movement: 
  • Capita did not implement a tiering model for administrative accounts. This allowed the attacker to escalate privileges, move laterally across multiple domains and compromise critical systems. 
  • These failings were flagged as a vulnerability on at least three separate occasions but were not remedied. 
  • Failure to respond appropriately to security alerts: 
  • A high priority security alert was raised within ten minutes of the breach, but Capita took 58 hours to respond appropriately, against a target response time of one hour. 
  • Capita’s Security Operations Centre was understaffed, and in at least six months before the incident fell well below the target response times for responding to security alerts. 
  • Inadequate penetration testing and risk assessment: 
  • Systems processing millions of records, including some sensitive data, were only subject to a penetration test upon being commissioned and were not subject to any subsequent penetration test. 
  • Findings from penetration tests were siloed within business units. Risks identified that affected the wider Capita network were not universally addressed. 

The ICO has highlighted key areas where organisations should be taking proactive steps to reduce security risks, such as: 

  • Regularly monitoring for suspicious activity and responding to initial warnings and alerts in a timely manner; 
  • Sharing the findings from penetration testing across the whole organisation so risks can be universally addressed; 
  • Prioritising investment in key security controls to ensure that they are operating effectively; and 
  • Checking agreements and responsibilities between data controllers and data processors. 

Capita Pension Solutions Limited was fined as a data processor. It processes personal data on behalf of over 600 organisations providing pension schemes, with 325 of these organisations also impacted by the data breach. This is only the second time a data processor has been fined by the ICO. In March 2025, Advanced Computer Software Group Ltd, a key IT and software provider for the NHS and other healthcare organisations, was fined £3,076,320. Hackers exploited a vulnerability through a customer account that lacked multi-factor authentication, gaining access to multiple health and care systems operated by Advanced. The ICO investigation found that personal data belonging to 79,404 people was taken. This included phone numbers, medical records, and even details on how to access the homes of 890 individuals receiving at-home care. 

This is the fifth GDPR fine issued by the ICO in 2025; four of these have been in relation to cyber security incidents.  In March an NHS IT supplier was fined £3million, in April a £60,000 fine was issued to a law firm and in June 23andMe, a US genetic testing company, was fined £2.31 million. 

We have two workshops coming up (How to Increase Cyber Security in your Organisation and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to up skill their employees about cyber security. See also our Managing Personal Data Breaches Workshop. 

Scope of the GDPR: ICO Wins Clearview Appeal  

The Information Commissioner has won his appeal (to the Upper Tribunal) against the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision involving Clearview AI Inc.  

Clearview is a US based company which describes itself as the “World’s Largest Facial Network”. Its online database contains 20 billion images of people’s faces and data scraped from the internet and social media platforms all over the world. It allows customers to upload an image of a person to its app; the person is then identified by the app checking against all the images in the Clearview database. The appeal raised the issue of the extent to which processing of the personal data of UK data subjects by a private company based outside the UK is excluded from the scope of the GDPR, including where such processing is carried out in the context of its foreign clients’ national security or criminal law enforcement activities. 

Background 

In May 2022 the ICO issued a Monetary Penalty Notice of £7,552,800 to Clearview for breaches of the UK GDPR including failing to use the information of people in the UK in a way that is fair and transparent. Although Clearview is a US company, the ICO ruled that the UK GDPR applied because of Article 3(2)(b) (territorial scope). It concluded that Clearview’s processing activities “are related to…the monitoring of [UK resident’s] behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the United Kingdom.” The ICO also issued an Enforcement Notice ordering Clearview to stop obtaining and using the personal data of UK residents that is publicly available on the internet, and to delete the data of UK residents from its systems.  

In October 2023, the FTT overturned the ICO’s enforcement and penalty notice against Clearview. It concluded that although Clearview did carry out data processing related to monitoring the behaviour of people in the UK (Article 3(2)(b) of the UK GDPR), the ICO did not have jurisdiction to take enforcement action or issue a fine. Both the GDPR and UK GDPR provide that acts of foreign governments fall outside their scope; it is not for one government to seek to bind or control the activities of another sovereign state. However the Tribunal noted that the ICO could have taken action under the Law Enforcement Directive (Part 3 of the DPA 2018 in the UK), which specifically regulates the processing of personal data in relation to law enforcement. 

The Upper Tribunal Judgement  

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the FTT and remitted the matter to the FTT to decide the substantive appeal on the basis that the Information Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the notices. It also decided that the FTT was right to find that Clearview’s processing fell within the territorial scope of the GDPRs, albeit that it differed in its reasoning. 

In its judgment, the Upper Tribunal ruled  that: 

(1) The words “in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law” in Article 2(2)(a) of the GDPR (which provides for an exclusion from the material scope of the GDPR) refer only to those activities in respect of which Member States have reserved control to themselves and not conferred powers on the Union to act, and not to all matters without the competence of the Union (as the ICO argued) or to the activities of third parties whose processing “intersects” with their clients’ processing in the course of “quintessentially state functions” which would offend against comity principles (as Clearview argued); 

(2) The words “behavioural monitoring” in Article 3(2)(b) are to be interpreted broadly, as a response to the challenges posed by ‘Big Data’ in the digital age, and they can encompass passive collection, sorting, classification and storing of data by automated means with a view to potential subsequent use, including use by another controller, of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person. “Behavioural monitoring” does not require an element of active “watchfulness” in the sense of human involvement;  

(3) The words “related to” in Article 3(2)(b) of the GDPR, as applied to Article 3(2)(b), have an expansive meaning, and apply not only to controllers who themselves conduct behavioural monitoring, but also to controllers whose data processing is related to behavioural monitoring carried out by another controller. 

Data protection practitioners should read the judgement of the Upper Tribunal as it clarifies the material and territorial scope provisions of the UK GDPR. This and other GDPR developments will be discussed in our forthcoming GDPR Update workshop.  

Charity Receives £18,000 GDPR Fine

On Monday, a Scottish Charity (Birthlink) received a GDPR Monetary Penalty Notice of £18,000 after it destroyed approximately 4,800 personal records, up to ten percent of which may be irreplaceable. 

Birthlink is a charity specialising in post-adoption support and advice, for people who have been affected by adoption with a Scottish connection.
Since 1984 it has owned and maintained the Adoption Contact Register for Scotland. The Register allows adopted people, birth parents, birth relatives and relatives of an adopted person to register their details with the aim of being linked to and potentially reunited with family members. 

Key findings from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigation include: 

  • Handwritten letters and photographs from birth parents amongst items destroyed 
  • Some people’s access to part of their family histories and identities may have been permanently erased due to systematic data protection failures 
  • Poor records management means true extent of actual loss will never fully be known 
  • The charity had limited knowledge of data protection obligations and lacked cost effective and easy-to-implement policies and procedures, which would likely have prevented the destruction. 

Background 

In January 2021, Birthlink reviewed whether they could destroy ‘Linked Records’ as space was running out in the charity’s filing cabinets. ‘Linked Records’ are files of cases where people had already been linked with the person they sought and can include handwritten letters from birth parents, photographs, and copies of birth certificates.  

Following a February 2021 Board meeting, it was agreed no barriers to the destruction of records existed but that retention periods should apply to certain files and only replaceable records could be destroyed. Due to poor record keeping, it is estimated some records were destroyed on 15 April 2021 with a further 40 bags destroyed on 27 May 2021.  

In August 2023, following an inspection by the Care Inspectorate, the Birthlink Board became aware that irreplaceable items had in fact been destroyed as part of the overall record destruction. It reported the incident to the ICO. 

ICO Findings 

The ICO investigation found the following infringements of the UK GDPR: 

  1. Birthlink’s destruction of manual records containing personal data of approximately 4,800 of its service users without authorisation or lawful basis (“Relevant Processing”) occurred as a result of its failure to implement appropriate organisational measures ensuring the security of the personal data contained in the records. In this regard, the ICO found that Birthlink contravened Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1)-(2) of the UK GDPR (security). 
  1. A significant contributing factor leading to the Relevant Processing, was Birthlink’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the data protection principles in accordance with Article 5(2) of the UK GDPR. Birthlink has accepted that there was limited understanding of the UK GDPR at the time of the Relevant Processing until around March 2023 when it introduced data protection training for its staff. 
  1. Despite acknowledging the high risk to affected service users arising from the Relevant Processing, Birthlink did not notify the ICO of the personal data breach until 8 September 2023. A delay of two years and five months represents a marked departure from the obligation to notify the ICO within 72 hours of becoming aware of a personal data breach in accordance with Article 33(1) UK GDPR. 

Why a fine now? 

This fine comes two weeks after the catastrophic data breach involving the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was reported, following the High Court lifting a superinjunction. In February 2022, an MoD official mistakenly emailed a spreadsheet containing personal details of over 18,000 Afghan nationals who had applied to move to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The data breach also contained personal details of more than 100 British officials including those whose identities are most closely guarded; special forces and spies.  

Despite the scale and sensitivity of the MoD data breach, the ICO decided not to take any regulatory action; not even a reprimand! In its press release, the ICO praised the MoD’s internal investigation and mitigation efforts, stating that “no further regulatory action is required at this time”.  

The ICO has been heavily criticised for their inaction. The Commons Defence Committee said it would launch its own inquiry, and Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Commons Committee for Science Innovation and Technology, said that it is writing to the Information Commissioner pushing for an investigation. Following this, the Information Commissioner issued a further statement explaining the ICO approach.  

Of course no one is suggesting that the ICO fine for Birthlink is an attempt by the ICO to move on from the MoD non-enforcement but readers may at least be wondering why a relatively small Scottish charity is fined whilst a large government department (which has been fined previously in similar circumstances) has faced no action at all.  

This case shows the importance of good records management in ensuring GDPR compliance. Our forthcoming workshop will help you implement records management best practice and understand how it can help manage the personal data lifecycle. 

£2.31 Million GDPR Fine for Genetic Testing Company. But will the fine be paid? 

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined a US genetic testing company £2.31 million under the UK GDPR following a 2023 cyber-attack. 

23andMe provides genetic testing for, amongst other things, health purposes and ancestry tracing. In 2023 a hacker carried out a credential stuffing attack on the company’s platform, exploiting reused login credentials that were stolen from previous unrelated data breaches. This resulted in unauthorised access to 155,592 UK residents’ personal data; potentially revealing sensitive data such as profile images, race, ethnicity, family trees and health reports. The type and amount of personal data accessed varied depending on the information included in a customer’s account. 

The investigation into 23andMe revealed serious security failings at the time of the 2023 data breach. The company failed to implement appropriate authentication and verification measures, such as mandatory multi-factor authentication, secure password protocols, or unpredictable usernames. It also failed to implement appropriate controls over access to raw genetic data and did not have effective systems in place to monitor, detect, or respond to cyber threats targeting its customers’ sensitive information. 

The ICO also found that 23andMe’s response to the unfolding incident was inadequate. The hacker began their credential stuffing attack in April 2023, before carrying out their first period of intense credential stuffing activity in May 2023.
In August 2023, a claim of data theft affecting over 10 million users was dismissed as a hoax, despite 23andMe having conducted isolated investigations into unauthorised activity on its platform in July 2023. Another wave of credential stuffing followed in September 2023, but the company did not start a full investigation until October 2023, when a 23andMe employee discovered that the stolen data had been advertised for sale on Reddit. Only then did 23andMe confirm that a breach had occurred.  

What happens now? 

The ICO has made much of this penalty and the joint investigation conducted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, said: 

“We carried out this investigation in collaboration with our Canadian counterparts, and it highlights the power of international cooperation in holding global companies to account. Data protection doesn’t stop at borders, and neither do we when it comes to protecting the rights of UK residents.” 

The fine comes after an ICO statement in March which said that a Notice of Intent had been issued of £4.59 million. An almost 50% reduction but, whatever the amount of the fine, the ICO is unlike to see a penny.  

In April 23andMe filed for bankruptcy in the US courts. On Friday it said that it had agreed to the sale of its assets to a non-profit biotech organisation led by its
co-founder and former chief executive. It said the purchase of the company would come with binding commitments to uphold existing policies and consumer protections, such as letting customers delete their accounts, genetic data and opt out of research.
A bankruptcy court is scheduled to hear the case for its approval on Wednesday. 

This case is also a good example of  the extra territorial reach of the UK GDPR.  Article 3(2)(a) UK GDPR as although 23andMe is not established within the UK, it processes the personal data of the affected UK Data Subjects for the purposes of offering goods or services to those individuals. 

This is the third fine issued by the ICO in 2025. In April a £60,000 fine was issued to a law firm and in March an NHS IT supplier was fined £3million. Both also followed cyber-attacks.   

 We have two workshops coming up (How to Increase Cyber Security in your Organisation and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to up skill their employees about cyber security. See also our Managing Personal Data Breaches Workshop. 

ICO Issues £60,000 GDPR Fine  

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined a Merseyside-based law firm £60,000 following a cyber-attack that led to highly sensitive personal data being published on the dark web. 

DPP Law Ltd (DPP) specialises in a number of areas of law including crime and actions against the police. It suffered the cyber-attack in June 2022 which affected access to the firm’s IT systems for over a week. The hackers were able to move laterally across DPP’s network and take over 32GB of data. DPP only became aware of this after the National Crime Agency contacted the firm to advise information relating to their clients had been posted on the dark web. DPP did not report the incident to the ICO until 43 days after they became aware of it. 

The ICO found that DPP failed to put appropriate measures in place to ensure the security of personal data held electronically. This failure enabled the hackers to gain access to DPP’s network, via an infrequently used administrator account which lacked multi-factor authentication (MFA) and steal large volumes of data. 

This is the second GDPR fine issued to a law firm. In March 2022, the ICO issued a fine of £98,000 to Tuckers Solicitors LLP. The fine followed a ransomware attack on the firm’s IT systems in August 2020. The attacker encrypted 972,191 files, of which 24,712 related to court bundles. 60 of those were exfiltrated by the attacker and released on the dark web. 

We have two workshops coming up (How to Increase Cyber Security in your Organisation and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about cyber security. See also our Managing Personal Data Breaches Workshop. 

Police Service of Northern Ireland Fined £750,000 for GDPR Breach 

The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued a GDPR fine of £750,000 to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) for a personal data breach affecting thousands of officers.  

In August 2023, in response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, the PSNI mistakenly divulged information on “every police officer and member of police staff”, a senior officer said at the time. The FoI request, via the What Do They Know.Com website, had asked the PSNI for a breakdown of all staff rank and grades. But as well as publishing a table containing the number of people holding positions such as constable, a spreadsheet was included. This contained the surnames of more than 9,483 PSNI officers and staff, their initials and other data, but did not include any private addresses. The information was published on the WDTK website for more than two hours, leaving many fearing for their safety. 

The ICO investigation found that simple-to-implement procedures could have prevented the breach. The ICO’s statement said: 

“Mindful of the current financial position at PSNI and not wishing to divert public money from where it is needed, the Commissioner used his discretion to apply the public sector approach in this case. Had this not been applied, the fine would have been £5.6 million.” 

On 26th June 2024, the ICO announced that it will review the two-year trial before making a decision on the public sector approach in the autumn. The Notice of Intent issued to the PSNI before this fine was issued, was also in the sum of £750,000.  

In August this year, the ICO issued a Notice of Intent £6.09 million to an NHS IT supplier, Advanced Computer Software Group Ltd (Advanced), following a significant data breach in 2022. This came after the ICO found that the company failed to adequately protect the personal data of 82,946 individuals. It will be interesting to see if, here too, the actual fine will be the same as the notice. 

ICO Announces £750K Potential Fine for Data Breach

The Information Commissioner’s Office has today announced that it intends to fine the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) £750,000 for a personal data breach.

The proposed fine (Notice of Intent) relates to an incident  which occurred last summer. In response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, the PSNI mistakenly divulged information on “every police officer and member of police staff”, a senior officer said at the time. The FoI request, via the What Do They Know.Com website, had asked the PSNI for a breakdown of all staff rank and grades. But as well as publishing a table containing the number of people holding positions such as constable, a spreadsheet was included. This contained the surnames of more than 10,000 individuals, their initials and other data, but did not include any private addresses. The information was published on the WDTK website for more than two hours. At the time the breach was reported, Ibrahim Hasan gave an interview to BBC Radio Ulster (Listen here.)

The ICO says that the proposed fine could be imposed on the PSNI “for failing to protect the personal information of its entire workforce.” It has provisionally found the PSNI’s internal procedures and sign-off protocols for the safe disclosure of information were inadequate. 

The fact that the ICO is proposing a large fine is not surprising. The scale of the PSNI data breach is huge. The release of the names exposes individuals who are regularly targeted by terrorist groups. The PSNI has previously confirmed that the information was in the hands of dissident republicans, among others. 

It is important to note that this is not a fine. It is a ‘Notice of Intent’– a legal document that precedes a potential fine. Such a notice sets out the ICO’s provisional view which may of course change after PSNI makes representations. Remember we have been here before. In July 2018 British Airways was issued with a Notice of Intent, for cyber security breach, in the sum of £183 Million but the actual fine was for £20 million issued in July 2020. In November 2020 Marriott International Inc was fined £18.4 million, much lower than the £99 million set out in the original notice.

PSNI has also been issued with a preliminary Enforcement Notice, requiring the Service to improve the security of personal information when responding to FOI requests.

We have two workshops coming up in September (Introduction to Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to up skill their employees about data security. See also our Managing Personal Data Breaches Workshop.  

image credits: visitderry.com

YMCA Fined for HIV Email Data Breach 

Another day and another ICO fine for a data breach involving email! The Central Young Men’s Christian Association (the Central YMCA) of London has been issued with a Monetary Penalty Notice of £7,500 for a data breach when emails intended for those on a HIV support programme were sent to 264 email addresses using CC instead of BCC, revealing the email addresses to all recipients. This resulted in 166 people being identifiable or potentially identifiable. A formal reprimand has also been issued. 

Failure to use blind carbon copy (BCC) correctly in emails is one of the top data breaches reported to the ICO every year. In December 2023, the ICO fined the Ministry of Defence (MoD) £350,000 for disclosing personal information of people seeking relocation to the UK shortly after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021. Again the failure to use blind copy when using e mail was a central cause of the data breach. 

Last year the Patient and Client Council (PCC) and the Executive Office were the subject of ICO reprimands for disclosing personal data in this way. In October 2021, HIV Scotland was issued with a £10,000 GDPR fine when it sent an email to 105 people which included patient advocates representing people living with HIV. All the email addresses were visible to all recipients, and 65 of the addresses identified people by name. From the personal data disclosed, an assumption could be made about individuals’ HIV status or risk.  

Organisations must have appropriate policies and training in place to minimise the risks of personal data being inappropriately disclosed via email. To avoid similar incidents, the ICO recommends that organisations should: 

  1. Consider using other secure means to send communications that involve large amounts of data or sensitive information. This could include using bulk email services, mail merge, or secure data transfer services, so information is not shared with people by mistake.  
  1. Consider having appropriate policies in place and training for staff in relation to email communications.  
  1. For non-sensitive communications, organisations that choose to use BCC should do so carefully to ensure personal email addresses are not shared inappropriately with other customers, clients, or other organisations. 

More on email best practice in the ICO’s email and security guidance. 

We have two workshops coming up (How to Increase Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data security. We have also just launched our new workshop, Understanding GDPR Accountability and Conducting Data Protection Audits. 

The MoD GDPR Fine: The Dangers of Email 

Inadvertent disclosure of personal data on email systems has been the subject of a number of GDPR enforcement actions by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the past few years. In 2021, the transgender charity Mermaids was fined £25,000 for failing to keep the personal data of its users secure. The ICO found that Mermaids failed to implement an appropriate level of security to its internal email systems, which resulted in documents or emails containing personal data being searchable and viewable online by third parties through internet search engine results. 

Failure to use blind carbon copy (BCC) correctly in emails is one of the top data breaches reported to the ICO every year. Last year the Patient and Client Council (PCC) and the Executive Office were the subject of ICO reprimands for disclosing personal data in this way. In October 2021, HIV Scotland was issued with a £10,000 GDPR fine when it sent an email to 105 people which included patient advocates representing people living with HIV. All the email addresses were visible to all recipients, and 65 of the addresses identified people by name. From the personal data disclosed, an assumption could be made about individuals’ HIV status or risk.  

The latest GDPR fine was issued in December 2023, although the Monetary Penalty Notice has only just been published on the ICO website. The ICO has fined the Ministry of Defence (MoD) £350,000 for disclosing personal information of people seeking relocation to the UK shortly after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021. 

On 20th September 2021, the MoD sent an email to a distribution list of Afghan nationals eligible for evacuation using the ‘To’ field, with personal information relating to 245 people being inadvertently disclosed. The email addresses could be seen by all recipients, with 55 people having thumbnail pictures on their email profiles.
Two people ‘replied all’ to the entire list of recipients, with one of them providing their location. 

The original email was sent by the team in charge of the UK’s Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP), which is responsible for assisting the relocation of Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Government in Afghanistan.
The data disclosed, should it have fallen into the hands of the Taliban, could have resulted in a threat to life. 

Under the UK GDPR, organisations must have appropriate technical and organisational measures in place to avoid disclosing people’s information inappropriately. ICO guidance makes it clear that organisations should use bulk email services, mail merge, or secure data transfer services when sending any sensitive personal information electronically. The ARAP team did not have such measures in place at the time of the incident and was relying on ‘blind carbon copy’ (BCC), which carries a significant risk of human error. 

The ICO, taking into consideration the representations from the MoD, reduced the fine from a starting amount of £1,000,000 to £700,000 to reflect the action the MoD took following the incidents and recognising the significant challenges the ARAP team faced. Under the ICO’s public sector approach, the fine was further reduced to £350,000.  

Organisations must have appropriate policies and training in place to minimise the risks of personal data being inappropriately disclosed via email. To avoid similar incidents, the ICO recommends that organisations should: 

  1. Consider using other secure means to send communications that involve large amounts of data or sensitive information. This could include using bulk email services, mail merge, or secure data transfer services, so information is not shared with people by mistake.  
  1. Consider having appropriate policies in place and training for staff in relation to email communications.  
  1. For non-sensitive communications, organisations that choose to use BCC should do so carefully to ensure personal email addresses are not shared inappropriately with other customers, clients, or other organisations. 

More on email best practice in the ICO’s email and security guidance. 

We have two workshops coming up (How to Increase Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data security. We have also just launched our new workshop, Understanding GDPR Accountability and Conducting Data Protection Audits. 

HelloFresh fined by the ICO

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined food delivery company HelloFresh £140,000 for a campaign of 79 million spam emails and 1 million spam texts over a seven-month period. 

HelloFresh, under its official name Grocery Delivery E-Services UK Limited, was deemed to contravene regulation 22 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. 

Key points from this case include: 

  1. Inadequate Consent Mechanism: The opt-in statement used by HelloFresh did not specifically mention the use of text messages for marketing. While there was a mention of email marketing, it was ambiguously tied to an age confirmation statement, which could mislead customers into consenting. 
  1. Lack of Transparency: Customers were not properly informed that their data would continue to be used for marketing purposes for up to 24 months after they cancelled their subscriptions with HelloFresh. 
  1. Continued Contact Post Opt-Out: The ICO’s investigation revealed that HelloFresh continued to contact some individuals even after they had explicitly requested for the communications to stop. 
  1. Volume of Complaints: The investigation was triggered by numerous complaints, both to the ICO and through the 7726 spam message reporting service. 
  1. Substantial Fine: As a result of these findings, HelloFresh was fined £140,000. 
     
    Andy Curry, Head of Investigations at the ICO, emphasised the severity of the breach, noting that HelloFresh failed to provide clear opt-in and opt-out information, leading to a bombardment of unwanted marketing communications. The ICO’s decision to impose a fine reflects their commitment to enforce the law and protect customer data rights. 

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with data protection and electronic communications regulations, especially in terms of obtaining clear and informed consent for marketing communications.

Dive deeper into the realm of data protection with our UK GDPR Practitioner Certificate, offering crucial insights into compliance essentials highlighted in this blog. Limited spaces are available for our January cohort – book now to enhance your understanding and navigate data regulations with confidence.