Search

How can we help?

Icon

GDPR: the ICO attempts to clarify obligation to report serious data breaches

Faced with misleading press stories, the ICO has been addressing misconceptions about the GDPR by publishing myth busting blogs, including on the new requirement to report serious breaches of personal data.

Not all personal data breaches will need to be reported to the ICO, only if a risk to people’s rights and freedoms is likely.  The ICO does not give strict instructions of what incidents are serious enough to report but reiterates it is when people may suffer a significant detriment such as damage to reputation or financial loss. The ICO has encouraged all organisations to look at the types of incidents they could face to develop a sense of what would be serious.

Although the requirement to report a serious breach is without undue delay and where feasible within 72 hours, they don’t expect a full final report with all details within this time. The ICO have said that fines will be proportionate and will not be issued for every failure (although only time will tell what this will mean in practice). They remind firms that the point of the GDPR is not to punish organisations but to encourage companies to improve their ability to prevent breaches.

Under the current data protection law, reporting is best practice anyway even if not mandatory. Involving the ICO early can ensure the firm receives the best guidance and mitigate any fines issued.

Under the current data protection law, reporting is best practice anyway even if not mandatory. Involving the ICO early can ensure the firm receives the best guidance and mitigate any fines issued.

Organisations are encouraged to start planning now to ensure roles and processes are in place for when GDPR comes into effect in May 2018.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 23 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Section 172 Companies Act 2006: Key lessons from Saxon Woods v Costa

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods v Costa UKSC 21 clarifies directors’ duties under Section 172 Companies Act 2006, confirming that good faith requires both honest belief and appropriate conduct.

art
  • 22 October 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholders’ Agreements for Founders and Investors – SHA Series Part 3 of 5

A shareholders’ agreement is arguably one of the most valuable corporate governance agreements (along with articles of association) in any private UK company with more than one shareholder.

art
  • 19 October 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks: Are UK businesses becoming immigration enforcement officers?

The UK’s Right to Work regime has undergone a significant expansion, with changes taking effect from 1 October 2026.

art
  • 15 October 2026

Clarkslegal celebrates continued success in Chambers and Partners UK 2027

Clarkslegal is delighted to announce that we have once again been recognised by Chambers and Partners UK 2027, celebrating continued success across the firm and a number of enhanced individual rankings.

Pub
  • 15 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data breaches and ICO investigations: Responding with confidence

In this podcast Harry Berryman and Zahra Navarro discuss recent ICO enforcement action, common causes of data breaches, and the practical steps organisations should take to respond effectively when incidents occur.

art
  • 14 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

London Court of International Arbitration v International Chamber of Commerce: Key differences

Compare LCIA and ICC arbitration rules, costs, confidentiality provisions and expedited procedures. Learn the key differences between these leading international arbitration institutions and how to choose the right option for your commercial dispute.