The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ensures that organisations in the UK follow the latest data protection rules. It has the power to impose substantial fines on organisations that don’t take their data protection responsibilities seriously, but it doesn’t always issue a fine if an organisation gets something wrong.
In Data Protection Fining Guidance (currently in draft format), the ICO has outlined its process for determining whether to punish companies that have failed to safeguard personal data. The guidance looks at:
In this blog, we look at these in more detail.
Two critical pieces of legislation govern data protection in the UK*.
The ICO can impose a fine if satisfied that an organisation has breached the UK GDPR or the DPA. For example, when an organisation:
The guidance also outlines the maximum fines the ICO can issue for data protection failures.
Due to precedents in UK and EU law, the maximum amount the ICO can fine is only calculated by turnover percentage if the parent company’s gross revenue exceeds:
The ICO looks at each data protection breach on a case-by-case basis. But it does aim to be consistent when considering whether to issue a fine. Factors the ICO will look at when making its decision include:
If the ICO decides to issue a fine, it will calculate the amount of this penalty by applying the following five-step approach:
Once an appropriate fine amount is established, in exceptional circumstances, the ICO may reduce the penalty if the offending organisation cannot pay the total due to its financial position.
We welcome the clarity provided by the ICO in its latest guidance. In particular, we believe that the risk of being issued with a fine based on turnover will incentivise large parent corporations to ensure that all their businesses adhere to the UK’s data protection laws, as the risk of one falling short could harm all.
At the same time, the mix of fixed amount and turnover based penalties will ensure that smaller organisations are not disproportionately affected by any fines issued. However, in some cases, deciding whether to impose fines, and if so at what level, could still prove problematic. And it may be difficult to accurately assess the potential ‘dissuasiveness’ of fines, particularly with large global corporates. In many cases the use of turnover in calculating fines may not accurately reflect either the size of the organisation, or their ability to pay.
We appreciate the ICO’s revised approach to investigate and, where necessary, reprimand those businesses who have accrued multiple data protection infringements. This is a welcome change that will raise standards to the benefit of all. It should also make it easier for claimants to secure justice and compensation against organisations that have a history of data protection failures.
Overall, we believe that the ICO has established a proportionate and balanced approach that should encourage organisations to uphold their data protection responsibilities, and better protect the rights of individuals. As such, we believe the changes will be broadly welcomed.
*The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR) offer additional privacy rights in relation to electronic communications
This development comes despite Harrods previously stating that it accepted vicarious liability for the ‘despicable…
Disclosure of the true value comes as Harrods reports that its much criticised Redress Scheme…
KP Law, the law firm representing more than 275 survivors in their abuse and exploitation…
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified collective proceedings against Google on an opt-out basis,…
KP Law has today announced the launch of a potential claim on behalf of individuals…
The High Court made a Group Litigation Order on 10 June 2026 in relation to…