Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 FEBRUARY 2014

Google Exposed As In Breach Of Dutch Data Protection Law

Reed Smith (Worldwide)
Explore more from Reed Smith (Worldwide)

The Dutch data protection authority, the College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, has released a report following a seven-month investigation examining Google’s changes to its privacy policy.

European UnionPrivacy
Cynthia O'Donoghue
Cynthia O'Donoghue
Author LinkedIn connections

The Dutch data protection authority, the College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (CBP), has released a report following a seven-month investigation examining Google's changes to its privacy policy. CBP's report condemns Google for violating Dutch data protection law, the Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens (Wbp).

Controversially in March 2012, Google made changes to its privacy policy (GPP2012) to allow the combination of data collected from all of its services (including Google Search, Google Chrome, Gmail, Google DoubleClick advertising, Google Analytics, Google Maps and YouTube, as well as cookies via third-party websites).  Most significantly, CBP found that Google failed to demonstrate that adequate safeguards had been put in place to ensure the combination of data in this manner was limited to that which was strictly necessary, and Google was therefore in breach of Article 8 Wbp.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ten AI Giants, One Regulator And A Lesson For Everyone Else: What The ICO’s Foundation Model Report Really Tells Us

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has completed its supervision of major AI foundation model developers, revealing significant gaps in data protection practices and setting new expectations for legitimate interests assessments, transparency, and special category data handling. The regulator has now turned its attention to agentic AI systems, warning that autonomy is not an excuse for poor compliance and launching a call for evidence that will shape future regulatory guidance.
United KingdomPrivacy
Burges Salmon LLP
Burges Salmon LLP
Article

To Fine Or Not To Fine: EDPB Confirms Default Position In GDPR Enforcement Should Be To Fine

The European Data Protection Board has published draft guidelines proposing a fundamental shift in GDPR enforcement: a presumption that fines should be imposed for non-minor infringements, with a deliberately low bar for establishing negligence. Organizations will need to demonstrate robust compliance programs and documented decision-making to potentially avoid penalties, as regulators move from asking "should we fine?" to "can we justify not fining?"
GlobalPrivacy
Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Article

The ICO's Agentic AI Call For Evidence: What You Need To Know

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has launched a six-week consultation on agentic AI systems, examining how data protection law applies to autonomous AI agents that can make decisions and take actions with minimal human oversight. The call for evidence focuses on six critical themes including data security, transparency, accountability, automated decision-making, fairness and purpose limitation, and lawful bases for processing personal data.
United KingdomPrivacy
TLT
TLT
Article

ICO Cookie Crackdown 2.0: The ICO’s New Storage And Access Technologies Guidance

The UK Information Commissioner's Office has finalized its guidance on storage and access technologies, expanding compliance requirements beyond traditional cookies to include tracking pixels, device fingerprinting, and web storage. Organizations must now navigate stricter consent standards and three new narrow exceptions introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, while facing significantly increased enforcement penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover.
United KingdomPrivacy
ZwillGen
ZwillGen
Article

Private CCTV, Ring Doorbells And Police Investigations: Where Does UK GDPR Draw The Line?

Domestic surveillance technology has evolved from simple security cameras to sophisticated smart systems that may inadvertently create legal obligations for homeowners. When does a Ring doorbell or CCTV system transform an ordinary citizen into a data controller subject to UK GDPR, and what are the implications of millions of private cameras forming an unregulated surveillance network?
United KingdomPrivacy
HCR Law
HCR Law