header-logo header-logo

03 May 2018
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

GDPR fuels cybersecurity fears

nlj_7791_news

Businesses that suffer a cybersecurity attack after the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force could face huge fines as well as increased reputational damage and potential compensation claims.

The GDPR, which takes effect on 25 May, ushers in strict controls on the use of personal data in the UK. As organisations scramble to ensure their processes are compliant and employees are trained, concern is mounting about the GDPR’s impact on cybersecurity.

For example, TalkTalk was fined £400,000 in 2016 and £100,000 in 2017 after suffering cybersecurity attacks that led to data protection breaches. Although the maximum fine under the Data Protection Act is £0.5m, however, this will rise under the GDPR to €10m or 2% of annual worldwide turnover (whichever is highest) for breaches of data protection obligations, and €20m or 4% of worldwide turnover for breaches of data subjects’ rights and freedoms.

‘We won’t know the full consequences of an attack under the GDPR regime until it happens,’ said Jon Szehofner, partner, Gordon Dadds Financial Markets.

‘However, we do know that the fines could potentially be far more significant and the consequences much greater, and this concern is driving board-level support for investment in compliance. There is also greater potential reputational risk because the GDPR is making people realise the value of their own data.

‘Another issue is that the GDPR gives people rights to redress for misuse of data. Consequently, there has been speculation in some quarters that claims management companies may encourage people to pursue compensation.’

With less than three weeks to go, organisations should make sure they at least know where the gaps and risks are in their systems and focus on what is important to comply with the spirit of the GDPR, Szehofner said.

‘There is a lot of interpretation involved in implementation, and many grey areas. It is principles-based rather than rules-based. Global banks are generally comfortable with that as it’s the type of regulatory system they’re used to, but smaller businesses may find it more difficult.’

Szehofner, who advises global financial institutions, says the first hurdle any organisation needs to clear is ‘understanding the scope of the GDPR as it pertains to their business’.

‘They need to look through the specific lens of their business because a generic response won’t work.’

Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll