Data Security

On 19 November 2025, the European Commission (“Commission”) officially presented its Digital Omnibus Package (see here and here). The initiative represents a comprehensive update to the EU’s digital regulatory landscape, which the Commission frames as a competitiveness and simplification initiative aimed at reducing administrative burdens and enhancing legal certainty for businesses. Although the final text is likely to evolve during negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council of the EU (“Council”), the package, if adopted in its present form, would introduce significant changes to data protection obligations, cookie rules, cybersecurity regulations and the EU AI Act.

The Digital Omnibus Package consists of two proposed regulations: a “Digital Omnibus” that would amend, amongst other legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), ePrivacy Directive, NIS2 Directive and Data Act, and a “Digital Omnibus on AI” that would amend the EU AI Act. We outline below key proposals from the Digital Omnibus that have particular significance for organizations operating in the EU.

A summary of amendments affecting the Data Act and the key proposals in the Digital Omnibus on AI will be addressed in subsequent blog posts.Continue Reading European Commission Proposes Revisions to GDPR and Other Digital Rules Under Digital Omnibus Package

As the UK Government has recognized, cyber incidents—such as Jaguar Land Rover, Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail and the British Library—are costing UK businesses billions annually and causing severe disruption. The Government recognizes that cybersecurity is a critical enabler of economic growth (“we cannot have growth without stability”), and that the current laws have “fallen out of date and are insufficient to tackle the cyber threats faced by the UK.” Accordingly the UK Government this week published its long-awaited Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (the “Bill”), which will amend the existing Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 (the “NIS Regulations”), and grant new powers to regulators and the Government in relation to cybersecurity.

The NIS Regulations are the UK’s pre-Brexit implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (the “NIS Directive”), which established a “horizontal” cybersecurity regulatory framework covering essential services in five sectors (transport, energy, drinking water, health, and digital infrastructure) and some digital services (online marketplaces, online search engines, and cloud computing services). EU legislators replaced NIS Directive in 2022 with the “NIS2” Directive, which Member States were meant to transpose into national law by October of last year (although many are still late in doing so. See our post on NIS2 here for an overview of the requirements of NIS2).

The Bill is the UK’s effort at modernizing the framework originally set out in the NIS Directive. In its current form, the Bill will:

  • Significantly expand the scope of the NIS Regulations—to cover, among other things, data centers and managed service providers—and impose additional substantive obligations on covered organizations.
  • Increase potential fines—up to GBP 17m or 4% of the worldwide turnover of an undertaking—and extend the powers of competent authorities to share information with one another, issue guidance, and take enforcement action.
  • Establish a framework for future changes to the NIS Regulations, mechanisms for competent authorities to impose specific cybersecurity requirements on covered organizations, and greater Government direction of cybersecurity matters.

Below, we set out further detail on five major changes in UK cybersecurity regulation arising from the Bill.Continue Reading Five major changes to the regulation of cybersecurity in the UK under the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill

Earlier this week, the ICO announced that it has fined UK-based outsourcing company, Capita, £14 million under the UK GDPR following a data breach in March 2023 that affected more than 6 million people. There are a few interesting points about this case, both from a security controls and fine calculation/settlement point of view, which we summarize below. Key takeaways on the security side relate to controls to prevent lateral movement, and best practices relating to penetration tests, alert systems, and properly resourcing your organization’s security operations center (“SOC”).Continue Reading ICO Fines Capita £14 Million Over 2023 Data Breach

On July 23, the White House released its AI Action Plan, outlining the key priorities of the Trump Administration’s AI policy agenda.  In parallel, President Trump signed three AI executive orders directing the Executive Branch to implement the AI Action Plan’s policies on “Preventing Woke AI in…

Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders

On May 22, 2025, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), which sits within the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) released guidance for AI system operators regarding managing data security risks.  The associated press release explains that the guidance provides “best practices for system operators to mitigate cyber risks through the artificial intelligence lifecycle, including consideration on securing the data supply chain and protecting data against unauthorized modification by threat actors.”  CISA published the guidance in conjunction with the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and cyber agencies from Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.  This guidance is intended for organizations using AI systems in their operations, including Defense Industrial Bases, National Security Systems owners, federal agencies, and Critical Infrastructure owners and operators. This guidance builds on the Joint Guidance on Deploying AI Systems Security released by CISA and several other U.S. and foreign agencies in April 2024.Continue Reading CISA Releases AI Data Security Guidance

Earlier in April, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published Special Publication (“SP”) 800-61, Incident Response Recommendations and Considerations for Cybersecurity Risk Management, Revision 3 (“NIST SP 800-61”).  NIST SP 800-61 Revision 3 (“Revision 3”) is a significant change, as it not only represents the first update of the document since 2012, but also now maps the document’s recommendations and considerations for incident response to the six functions outlined in the recently-updated NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0—Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.  As a result, Revision 3 includes significant new recommendations and guidance for incident response, and entities should consider reviewing and updating their incident response plans and procedures to incorporate these recommendations, particularly if an entity has aligned its cybersecurity program with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework or used the prior versions of NIST SP 800-61 as a basis for existing incident response plans or procedures.Continue Reading NIST Publishes Updated Incident Response Recommendations and Considerations

On April 7, 2025, South Africa’s Information Regulator announced a new requirement for organizations to report data breaches—referred to under local law as “security compromises”—via an online eServices Portal. The announcement marks a significant procedural shift in how companies must comply with the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013…

Continue Reading South Africa Introduces Mandatory e-Portal Reporting for Data Breaches

The UK Government has announced that it intends to introduce the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (the “Bill”) to Parliament in 2025. Formally proposed as part of the King’s Speech in July, this Bill is intended to strengthen the UK’s cross-sectoral cyber security legislation to better protect the UK’s economy and infrastructure. This Bill will update the existing NIS Regulations, which derive from EU law. Part of the UK Government’s motivation seems to be to keep pace with updates to EU law in this area, specifically relating to the NIS2 Directive that starts to apply this month (see our blog post on this, here).Continue Reading What to expect from the UK’s Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (and when)

In recent months, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) issued five judgments providing some clarity on the scope of individuals’ rights to claim compensation for “material and non-material damage” under Article 82 of the GDPR. These rulings will inform companies’ exposure to compensation claims, particularly in the context of the EU’s Collective Redress Directive, but open questions remain about the quantum of compensation courts will offer in these cases and we expect both the CJEU and national courts to deliver additional case-law clarifying this topic in the coming year (for more information on recent CJEU cases related to compensation, see our previous blog posts here and here).

  • In VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C-340/21), the CJEU concluded that individuals may have suffered “non-material damage”—and therefore be able to claim compensation—if they can demonstrate that they feared future misuse of personal data that was compromised in a personal data breach.  
  • In VX v Gemeinde Ummendorf (C-456/22), the CJEU found that there is no de minimis threshold for damage, below which individuals cannot claim for compensation.
  • In BL v MediaMarktSaturn (C-687-21), the CJEU restated its existing case-law, and expanded upon its analysis in VB by clarifying that alleged harms cannot be “purely hypothetical”.
  • In Kočner v Europol (C-755/21), the CJEU awarded non-material damages of €2000 for the publication in newspapers of transcripts of “intimate” text messages.
  • In GP v Juris GmbH (C-741/21), the CJEU found that where one processing activity infringes multiple provisions of the GDPR, this should not allow claimants to “double-count” the harm they suffered.

We provide further detail on each case below.Continue Reading Rounding up Five Recent CJEU Cases on GDPR Compensation