Tag: ICO

ICO Enforcement Guidance Consultation Launched 

The Information Commissioner’s Office has launched a consultation on new guidance setting out how it approaches investigations and takes enforcement action. Among other things, the guidance explains:  

  • How the ICO decides whether to open an investigation and the other ways it may instead seek to resolve any concerns. 
  • What to expect from the ICO during an investigation. 
  • How it will use its information gathering powers, including new powers under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to require people to answer questions and organisations to provide reports.  
  • How the ICO decides on the outcome of an investigation and use of its enforcement powers, such as warnings, reprimands, and enforcement and penalty notices. 
  • When it considers settlement with a reduced fine is appropriate and the process involved.  

The new guidance, once finalised, will sit alongside the ICO’s Data Protection Fining Guidance published last year. Together they will replace the statutory guidance currently set out in the Regulatory Action Policy.  

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 also includes provisions that will bring the ICO’s investigatory and enforcement powers under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR) broadly into line with its powers under the data protection legislation.  While there remain some differences, the ICO proposes to generally take the same approach to the use of its powers in relation to PECR as set out in the draft guidance in relation to the data protection legislation.  

The consultation will run for 12 weeks until Friday 23 January 2026.   

Revised GDPR Handbook 

The data protection landscape continues to evolve. With the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 now in force, practitioners need to ensure their materials reflect the latest changes to the UK GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018, and PECR. 

The newly updated UK GDPR Handbook (2nd edition) brings these developments together in one practical reference. It includes all amendments introduced by the DUA Act, with colour-coded changes for easy navigation and links to relevant recitals, ICO guidance, and caselaw that help make sense of the reforms in context. We have included relevant provisions of the amended DPA 2018 to support a deeper understanding of how the laws interact. Delegates on our future GDPR certificate courses will receive a complimentary copy of the UK GDPR Handbook as part of their course materials.  

If you are looking to implement the changes made by the DUA Act to the UK data protection regime, consider our very popular half day workshop.  

In case you missed it… 

In October, Capita was fined £14 million following 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. This and other recent cyber-attacks has increased the importance of cyber security training. 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. 

Also in October, the BBC reported that Gregg Wallace, the former MasterChef presenter, has issued proceedings against the BBC and BBC Studios for failing to respond to his subject access requests (SAR) in accordance with the UK GDPR.  Wallace was sacked by the BBC in July following an inquiry into alleged misconduct. As the saying goes, “Revenge is a dish best served cold!” Any BBC Executives reading this (if you are not too busy at the moment), are advised to attend our How to Handle a Subject Access Request workshop. No doubt there will be a few more SARs to the BBC in the coming weeks… 

The Information Commissioner, John Edwards, recently gave evidence to the House of Commons  Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.   Mr Edwards faced some tough questions about his response to the Afghan data breach, in which a Ministry of Defence (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 breach was only discovered in August 2023, when excerpts of the data appeared on Facebook. By then, the damage was done. A new resettlement scheme for those on the leaked list was set up and has seen 4,500 Afghans arrive in the UK so far. The Afghan Relocation Route has cost £400m so far, and the Government has said it is expected to cost a further £450m.  This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming  GDPR Update  workshop 

Finally, there are only two FOI Practitioner Certificate courses left till Christmas! This foundation course is designed for those wishing to acquire detailed knowledge of the FOI and develop the practical skills to enable them to become a more effective FOI Officer.  The syllabus has been developed by FOI experts after analysing all the skills, knowledge and competencies required for the FOI Officer role. By the end of the course, you will be able to practically handle FOI requests, apply the exemptions and draft Refusal Notices. You will also be able to differentiate between FOI requests and requests under the Environmental Information Regulations.  

Information Commissioner Grilled in Parliament 

Last week the Information Commissioner, John Edwards, gave evidence to the House of Commons  Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.  

Mr Edwards faced some tough questions about his response to the Afghan data breach, in which a Ministry of Defence (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 breach was only discovered in August 2023, when excerpts of the data appeared on Facebook. By then, the damage was done. A new resettlement scheme for those on the leaked list was set up and has seen 4,500 Afghans arrive in the UK so far. The Afghan Relocation Route has cost £400m so far, and the Government has said it is expected to cost a further £450m.  

It’s fair to say that overall the committee was not impressed with the ICO’s approach and John Edwards’ answers to some of their questions. Kit Malthouse’s claimed that the Afghan data breach was dealt with through “a few unrecorded meetings and a handshake”. 

Mr Edwards also answered questions about his wider remit. He slipped in that he has served a Notice of Intent on a social media company (Reddit), but did not give any details. If you missed the live session,  you can still watch the recording.
The Information Commissioner’s session start at 9:46 on the recording here.
If you prefer to read an account of his performance, the Independent covers it here. 

This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming  GDPR Update  workshop. The new (2nd) edition of the UK GDPR Handbook has been published. It contains all the changes made by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.  

Prince Andrew: The Data Protection Angle 

Over the weekend, the Mail on Sunday piled more pressure on Prince Andrew.  

It alleged that he asked his police protection officer to investigate his accuser, Virginia Giuffre,  just before the newspaper published a photo of Ms Giuffre’s first meeting with the prince in February 2011. The Mail alleges that Prince Andrew gave the officer her date of birth and social security number. The Sunday Telegraph also claimed that he “sought to dig up dirt” on Ms Giuffre. 

Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, said she was among the girls and young women sexually exploited by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his wealthy circle. Prince Andrew has consistently denied all allegations against him. 

The Metropolitan Police said on Sunday, “We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made.” Of course we don’t have detailed information about the circumstances around latest allegations against Prince Andrew, but (if true) there is a possible breach of Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). This makes it a criminal offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly:  

(a) obtain or disclose personal data without the consent of the controller,  

(b) procure the disclosure of personal data to another person without the consent of the controller, or  

(c) after obtaining personal data, to retain it without the consent of the person who was the controller in relation to the personal data when it was obtained. 

So if the latest allegations are true, Prince Andrew and/or his police protection officer at the time, could have committed a criminal offence under the DPA 2018. Unlike the other allegations against him, this offence does not carry a prison term; just a fine. Successive Information Commissioners have argued that a custodial sentence under S.170 would be a better deterrent (but to no avail).  

Will the Information Commissioner’s Office be knocking on Prince Andrew’s door? In June 2023, the ICO disclosed that, since 1stJune 2018, 92 cases involving S.170 offences were investigated by its Criminal Investigations Team. There have been a number of more recent S.170 prosecutions. These often involve people accessing/disclosing confidential information for financial gain.  

Depending again on the circumstances, there may also be an offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 which carries tougher sentences including a maximum of 2 years imprisonment on indictment.  In July 2022, a woman who worked for Cheshire Police pleaded guilty to using the police data systems to check up on ex-partners and in August 2022, the ICO commenced criminal proceedings against eight individuals over the alleged unlawful accessing and obtaining of customers’ personal data from vehicle repair garages to generate potential leads for personal injury claims.  

This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming  GDPR Update  workshop. The new (2nd) edition of the UK GDPR Handbook has been published. It contains all the changes made by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. 

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.  

Data (Use and Access) Act 2025: ICO Consultation 

Last month the ICO, launched public consultations on its guidance in response to The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUA Act) coming into force.  

The DUA Act received Royal Assent on 19th June 2025. It amends, rather than replaces, the UK GDPR as well as the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. (You can read a summary of the Act here.)  

The Act is not fully in force yet. The only substantive amendment (Section 78) to the UK GDPR that came into force on 19th June inserted a new Article 15(1A), relating to subject access requests: 

“…the data subject is only entitled to such confirmation, personal data and other information as the controller is able to provide based on a reasonable and proportionate search for the personal data and other information described in that paragraph.” 

Other provisions of the Act will commence in stages, 2 to 12 months after Royal Assent. The first commencement order, The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2025, came into force on 20th August.  

Recognised Legitimate Interests 

The DUA Act amends Article 6 of the UK GDPR to introduce ‘Recognised legitimate interest’ as a new lawful basis for processing personal data. This covers activities such as crime prevention, public security, safeguarding, emergencies and sharing personal data to help other organisations perform their public tasks. The proposed ICO guidance aims to make it easier for organisations to successfully use recognised legitimate interest by explaining how it works, along with giving practical examples. Further details on the 10-week consultation, which closes on 30 October 2025, can be found here.  

Data Protection Complaints 

By June 2026, Data Controllers must have a process in place to handle data protection complaints. A complaint can come from anyone who is unhappy with how an organisation has handled their personal data. The proposed ICO guidance sets out the new requirements and informs organisations of what they must, should and could do to comply. Further details on the eight-week consultation, which closes on 19 October 2025, can be found here.  

Data protection professionals need to assess the changes to the UK data protection regime set out in the DUA Act. Our half day workshop will explore the new Act in detail giving you an action plan for compliance. A revised UK GDPR Handbook is now available incorporating the changes made by the DUA Act.

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. 

The MoD Afghan Data Breach: Could the Information Commissioner have done more? 

On Tuesday, the High Court lifted a superinjunction that prevented scrutiny of one of the most serious personal data breaches involving a UK Government department. In February 2022, a Ministry of Defence (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 breach was only discovered in August 2023, when excerpts of the data appeared on Facebook. By then, the damage was done. A new resettlement scheme for those on the leaked list was set up and has seen 4,500 Afghans arrive in the UK so far. The Afghan Relocation Route has cost £400m so far, and the Government has said it is expected to cost a further £450m. Interesting that that the High Court in May 2024 heard it could cost “several billions”. 

Shockingly, people whose details were leaked were only informed on Tuesday. A review of the incident carried out on behalf of the MoD found it was “highly unlikely” an individual would have been targeted solely because of the leaked data, which “may not have spread nearly as widely as initially feared”. On Wednesday though, the Defence Secretary said he was “unable to say for sure” whether anyone had been killed as a result of the data breach. The daughter of an Afghan translator whose details were leaked told the BBC that her whole family “panicked”.  

“No one knows where the data has been sent to – it could be sent to the Taliban, they could have their hands on it,” she said. Her grandmother, who is still in Afghanistan, is “completely vulnerable”, she added. 

This is not the first time the MoD has mishandled Afghan data. In December 2023, it was fined £350,000  for disclosing details of people seeking relocation to the UK shortly after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 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.  

ICO’s Response 

Despite the scale and sensitivity of the latest MoD data breach, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has decided not to take any regulatory action; no, 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”. 

Compare this case to the data breach involving the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Last year, the ICO fined the PSNI £750,000 after staff mistakenly divulged the surnames of more than 9,483 PSNI officers and staff, their initials and other data in response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request. The 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. The information was published on the WDTK website for more than two hours, leaving many fearing for their safety. 

In September las year it was announced that a mediation process involving the PSNI is to take place to attempt to agree the amount of damages to be paid to up to 7,000 staff impacted by the data breach. The final bill could be as much as £240m, according to previous reports. Compare that with the impact and cost of the latest MoD data breach. 

Other ICO enforcement actions in the past few years for security failures include: 

  • Cabinet Office (2020): Fined £500,000 for publishing New Year Honours list online. Cause? Spreadsheet error. 
  • HIV Scotland (2021): Fined £10,000 when it sent an email to 105 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.   
  • Mermaids (2021): Fined £25,000 for failing 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.  

In the MoD case, the ICO claims it considered the “critical need to share data urgently” and the MoD’s “steps to protect those most affected”. But urgency wasn’t the issue; it was negligence. The breach occurred during routine verification, not a crisis. Even more concerning, the ICO’s own guidance states that breaches involving unauthorised disclosure of sensitive data, especially where lives are at risk, should trigger enforcement action. 

This lack of action by the ICO raises serious questions about the ICO’s independence and willingness to challenge government departments. Even if it felt a fine was not appropriate, a report to Parliament (under Section 139(3) of Data Protection Act 2018) would have highlighted the seriousness of the issues raised and consequently allowed MP’s to scrutinise the MoD’s actions.  

This breach is a national scandal; not just for its scale, but for the lack of transparency, accountability, and regulatory action. If the UK is serious about data protection, it must demand more from its regulator. Otherwise, the next breach may be even worse and just as quietly buried. 

Yesterday, the Commons Defence Committee confirmed 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. Watch this space! 

STOP PRESS: This afternoon the BBC reports that the data breach was much worse than previously thought: it contained personal details of more than 100 British officials including those whose identities are most closely guarded – special forces and spies. Is an ICO u turn incoming?

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.

£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. 

Footballers’ Objections to Data Processing: Red Card or Red Herring? 

“They play for us, not for the odds, 
They’re not just names for betting gods, 
If you want stats, you best be fair — 
Cos we stand with the players, everywhere!” 

Could this become a popular chant in football stadiums? It could, if a group of football players get their way.  

In the era of data-driven sports and digital fan engagement, betting and gaming companies increasingly rely on detailed player data to power their platforms.
From setting betting odds to fuelling fantasy leagues and live-match experiences, this data is central to the user experience. The data ranges from average goals-per-game for an outfield player to height, weight and passes during a game. Some of this data may be sold to the companies by clubs whilst other data may be collected by using public sources or by attending matches.  

Back in 2021, Ibrahim Hasan was interviewed by BBC Radio 4 when football players were threatening legal action against companies for the trade in their personal data. The players, led by former Cardiff City manager Russell Slade, sought compensation for the trading of their performance data over the past six years by various companies as well as an annual fee for any future use.  We were sceptical, at the time, about legal basis of any potential claim and its likelihood of success (blog post here).   

The GDPR does give players rights over their personal data which allow them to exercise some element of control including the right to see what data is held about them, to object to its processing and to ask for it to be deleted. Last month, Computer Weekly reported that the Global Sports Data and Technology Group, of which Russell Slade is a director, has submitted objection requests, on behalf of the players they represent, to gaming, betting and data-processing companies over the use of their data. They are citing ethical concerns with how the data distribution can affect the players’ career prospects.  

Article 21 of the UK GDPR states: 

“The data subject shall have the right to object, on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her which is based on point (e) or (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions.” 

Clearly one of the legal basis upon which betting and gaming companies process players’ personal data is legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f)) of the UK GDPR, and so Article 21 is engaged.  However, the second paragraph of Article 21 provides a reason for the companies to refuse the objection requests: 

“The controller shall no longer process the personal data unless the controller demonstrates compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.” 

What could be “compelling legitimate grounds for the processing”?  The companies might argue that their use of player data contributes to a larger economic ecosystem that ultimately benefits all stakeholders in football, including the players themselves. Their case could rest on the idea that engaging fans through betting and interactive gaming drives up interest in football. Increased viewership, in turn, boosts broadcasting revenues, club sponsorship deals, and the market value of football competitions; benefits that indirectly lead to higher wages and endorsement deals for the players. By providing platforms that stimulate engagement, betting companies help sustain and expand the financial health of the sport, from which players also profit. 

Let’s see where this goes. If court action follows, not only will the result have a big impact on the sports data industry but it could also lead to data protection themed chants on the terraces!  

This and other GDPR developments will be discussed in detail on our upcoming GDPR Update workshop. We have a few places left on our next 
GDPR Practitioner Certificate course starting on 29th May.