header-logo header-logo

‘Gloves off’ as first GDPR fine issued

10 July 2019
Issue: 7848 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail
Business fears about a tough GDPR regime have been confirmed after the first company to be penalised, British Airways, received a £183.39m fine.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) issued the penalty this week for a data breach that compromised 500,000 BA customers. Businesses have waited since 25 May 2018 to get an idea of the possible size of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) fines.

BA has said it will make representations to the ICO about the size of the proposed fine and intends to appeal.

David White, commercial and IP associate at Rollits, said the fine ‘demonstrates that the ICO is not afraid to use the weapons at its disposal to hammer home the importance of data protection. 

‘Any organisation that has ignored to its data protection responsibilities, or seen data protection compliance as a “tick-box” exercise, should take stock: the gloves are off.’

The BA fine represents about 1.5% of its annual worldwide turnover. Under the GDPR, organisations can be fined up to 20 million euros or 4% of annual worldwide turnover for a serious breach, whichever is highest, and 10 million euros or 2% of annual worldwide turnover for a less serious breach. This is considerably higher than the maximum £500,000 fines possible under the Data Protection Act.

Raoul Parekh, partner at GQ|Littler, said: ‘The first GDPR fine is the display of shock and awe that many feared.

‘Politicians and pressure groups have been lobbying for heavy penalties and it seems they have listened. The ICO has used its first announcement of intention to fine as a major deterrent to ensure businesses take GDPR extremely seriously.

‘British Airways has acted very responsibly since the breach was discovered, notifying the ICO and co-operating with the regulator to fix the issues and repair the damage. For the ICO, though, businesses need prevention and not just cure if they are to avoid fines.’

Issue: 7848 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll