Questions and answers

Start with the purpose, the controller's relationship with the person, and the legal or practical reason the processing is needed. Contract applies only where processing is objectively necessary to perform a contract with the person or take requested pre-contract steps. Legal obligation needs a duty imposed by UK law. Vital interests is narrow and protects a person's life. Public task requires a task in the public interest or official authority laid down by law.

Use consent only when the person has a genuine choice and can withdraw without detriment. Use ordinary legitimate interests only after the purpose, necessity, and balancing tests. Use recognised legitimate interest only when every requirement of a specific Annex 1 condition is met; unlike ordinary legitimate interests, it does not require a separate balancing test.

Article 6 is only the first layer. Processing special category data also needs an Article 9 condition. Processing criminal offence data must satisfy Article 10 and usually a condition in the Data Protection Act 2018. If the activity uses cookies or similar storage and access technologies, PECR may require consent even where another UK GDPR basis might otherwise appear available.

The selected basis also changes the rights analysis. For example, the right to data portability is tied to consent or contract and automated processing, while the right to object is particularly relevant to public task and legitimate interests. No lawful basis overrides fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, security, or accountability.

Keep a decision record that identifies the controller, data and people affected, each purpose, the chosen basis, the facts supporting it, the necessity analysis, and the approval date. Add the relevant contract clause, legal provision, consent record, public-task authority, Annex 1 condition, or legitimate interests assessment rather than relying on a label alone.

Update the record and privacy information when the purpose or processing changes. A controller should not switch basis after processing has started merely because the original choice became inconvenient. A genuine change in circumstances may justify a different basis, but the controller must document the change, assess fairness, and tell people where required.

Check whether the service is an information society service: a service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means, at the individual request of a recipient. Most for-profit online services meet that definition. Then assess whether the service is likely to be accessed by children under 18 in the UK, not merely whether the product is marketed to them.

Use evidence about the nature and presentation of the service, appeal to children, actual audience, comparable services, marketing, user research, and the effectiveness of access restrictions. If the service is unsuitable for children and reliable controls prevent their access, document that conclusion. If evidence later shows a substantive child audience, revisit the assessment and either conform to the code or improve the restriction.

The statutory scope excludes a general broadcast that is not provided at an individual's request and a preventive or counselling service, such as an online health screening or counselling service, offered specifically to children. An on-demand element of a broader broadcast and a general health, fitness, or well-being service can still be covered. The code came into force on 2 September 2020, and its 12-month transition ended on 2 September 2021, so an in-scope service should conform now.

Treat the child's best interests as a primary consideration and complete a DPIA that assesses differing ages, capacities, and risks. Apply the code in a risk-based and proportionate way, but do not use proportionality to remove the substance of a standard.

The 15 standards cover: best interests; DPIAs; age-appropriate application; transparency; detrimental use of data; policies and community standards; high-privacy default settings; data minimisation; data sharing; geolocation; parental controls; profiling; nudge techniques; connected toys and devices; and online tools that let children exercise rights or report concerns.

Keep the scope and age-range assessment, child-focused DPIA, design decisions against all 15 standards, user research, notices, settings, age-assurance reasoning, testing, parental-control behaviour, profiling logic, sharing map, geolocation controls, retention, and rights routes. Evidence should match the released product on each supported platform.

Review after new features, material interface changes, new profiling or sharing, changed age-assurance methods, a shift in the child audience, complaints, incidents, or evidence that a control does not work as intended.

A personal data breach is a security breach leading to accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to personal data. It covers confidentiality, integrity, and availability failures, not only theft or disclosure.

The controller must notify the ICO unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to people's rights and freedoms. If notification is required, it must be made without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours after the controller becomes aware. A processor must notify its controller without undue delay after becoming aware; Article 33 does not give processors their own 72-hour ICO deadline, although the contract may set a shorter escalation period.

The Article 33 report must describe the nature of the breach, including, where possible, the categories and approximate numbers of affected people and personal-data records; give the data protection officer's or other contact's details; describe likely consequences; and describe measures taken or proposed to address the breach and mitigate harm.

If all information is not available at once, provide it in phases without undue further delay. A report made after 72 hours must include reasons for the delay. Keep the submission, receipt, later updates, and decision trail with the incident record.

Article 34 requires the controller to communicate the breach to affected people without undue delay when it is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms. The communication must use clear, plain language and include the contact point, likely consequences, and measures taken or proposed, including mitigation.

Direct communication is not required if appropriate measures made the data unintelligible to unauthorised people, later measures ensure the high risk is no longer likely to materialise, or direct contact would involve disproportionate effort. In the last case, the controller must use a public communication or similarly effective measure. These exceptions must be assessed against the actual breach; encryption helps only if the keys and implementation remained secure.

First apply the ICO's restricted-transfer test: UK GDPR applies to the processing, your organisation initiates a transfer to an organisation outside the UK, and the recipient is a separate legal entity. If all three conditions are met, check the current ICO adequacy list and the underlying regulation.

Match the destination, territory, sector, recipient, data type, and any eligibility conditions. Record the regulation and date checked. If adequacy covers the transfer, no Article 46 safeguard or TRA is required, but the lawful basis, transparency, security, processor, rights, minimisation, and accountability duties still apply.

The ICO's current list includes full adequacy for the EEA countries and institutions, Andorra, Argentina, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the Republic of Korea. Canada and Japan have partial coverage under the conditions stated by the ICO. The United States has partial coverage only for eligible transfers under the UK Extension.

Treat this list as time-sensitive. The Secretary of State must monitor relevant developments and amend or revoke approval regulations if the Article 45B data protection test is no longer met. Check the ICO list and regulation when approving a new transfer and on a suitable review trigger.

Use an Article 46 safeguard and complete the data protection test, which the ICO continues to call a transfer risk assessment, or rely on a specific Article 49 exception if its conditions are met. Exceptions are not a substitute for routine safeguards simply because they are easier to document.

If part of a transfer is covered and part is not, separate the data or recipients and document the lawful route for each part. Stop the uncovered transfer if no safeguard or exception can lawfully support it.