pseudonimization

On February 13, 2026, France’s highest administrative court (“Conseil d’État”) delivered an important decision clarifying the boundary between pseudonymization and anonymization under the GDPR. The ruling confirms that data which remain re‑identifiable in practice—even with some effort—must be treated as personal data under the GDPR by service providers, unless the risk of re‑identification by such providers can genuinely be regarded as insignificant.Continue Reading France’s Highest Administrative Court Upholds CNIL’s Standard On Anonymization

On February 19, 2026, the UK Court of Appeal handed down its decision in DSG Retail Limited v The Information Commissioner [2026] EWCA Civ 140. The Court ruled that a controller’s data security duty applies to all personal data for which it acts as controller – irrespective of whether the information would constitute personal data in the hands of a third party (in this case, an attacker). Note that the case is concerned with events before the GDPR came into force, so the legal context is provided by UK Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”), although the Court did take into account more recent jurisprudence, including CJEU case law.

The case adds useful colour to ongoing debates surrounding the definition of “personal data.” The Court of Appeal confirmed that a controller’s duty to implement appropriate measures to protect personal data applies to data that is “personal” from the perspective of the controller —even if a third-party attacker could not identify individuals from the exfiltrated dataset. This dovetails with the SRB v EDPS’s clarification that whether data is “personal” can depend on the context, while a controller’s obligations (such as transparency) must be assessed from the controller’s perspective at the relevant time (which, for the transparency principle, is at the time of collection of the data). (For more information on SRB v EDPS, see our prior post here.)Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal Rules on the Concept of Personal Data in the Context of Data Security

On February 18, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Report on Stakeholder Event on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation of 12 December 2025 (the “Report”). The Report summarises feedback from a remote stakeholder event convened to inform the EDPB’s ongoing work on Guidelines 01/2025 on Pseudonymisation (version for public consultation available here) and forthcoming guidance on anonymisation. The event gathered input from 115 participants spanning industry, NGOs, academia, law firms, and public sector bodies.

The objective of the Report is to capture stakeholder insights on how the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to anonymisation and pseudonymisation, particularly following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) judgment in EDPS v SRB (C‑413/23 P). (See our previous blog post here.)Continue Reading EDPB Publishes Report on Stakeholder Event on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation

On February 6, 2025, Advocate General Spielmann released his opinion in the EDPS vs. SRB case (Case C‑413/23 P).  In this case, the European Data Protection Supervisor appealed a decision from the General Court (see our blog post here).

In essence, the case turns on the question of whether…

Continue Reading CJEU Advocate General Supports Pragmatic Definition of Personal Data

As we anticipated in a previous blog post, on April 22, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued new guidelines on the use of location data and contact tracing apps in the context of the present COVID-19 pandemic.

The EDPB’s new guidelines complement and build on similar guidance previously issued by the Board itself (see here, here and here), and by the European Commission (see our blog post here).

The EDPB’s close scrutiny over the use of mobile data and apps in the context of the ongoing public health crisis is unsurprising, as many EU Member States have launched—or are in the process of launching—contact tracing apps to fight the spread of the virus, and these initiatives are receiving great attention by data privacy authorities and the general public (see our blog post here).

The guidelines aim to clarify the data protection conditions and principles that should be followed when:

  • using location data to model the spread of the virus to assess the overall effectiveness of confinement measures; and
  • using contact tracing apps, which aim to notify individuals who may have been in close proximity to someone who is infected or confirmed as a carrier of the virus, in order to break the contamination chain as early as possible.

The EDPB stresses that EU data protection rules have been designed to be flexible and, as such, do not stand in the way of an efficient response to the pandemic.  However, it notes that governments and private actors should be mindful of a number of considerations when they use data-driven solutions in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.Continue Reading EDPB Issues New Guidance on the Use of Location Data and Contact Tracing in the Context of the COVID-19 Outbreak

On November 4, 2019, the Spanish Supervisory Authority (“AEPD”), in collaboration with the European Data Protection Supervisor, published guidance on the use of hashing techniques for pseudonymization and anonymization purposes. In particular, the guidance analyses what factors increase the probability of re-identifying hashed messages.

The AEPD explains that the probability…
Continue Reading Spanish Supervisory Authority and EDPS Release Guidance on Hashing for Data Pseudonymization and Anonymization Purposes