59,000 Data Breaches in EU Since GDPR Took Effect: Report
New survey from DLA Piper shows that authorities in the European Union logged more than 59,000 reports of personal data breaches since the General Data Protection Regulation took effect about eight months ago. But the lawyers behind the survey say many EU countries are still digging out from beneath a backlog of breach reports, which likely means more enforcement actions and fines on the horizon.
February 11, 2019 at 05:13 PM
6 minute read
A fuller picture of data breach activity is beginning to develop in the European Union, where authorities have logged more than 59,000 reports of personal data breaches since the General Data Protection Regulation took effect about eight months ago, according to a DLA Piper survey.
The report found that 65 percent of the breach notifications made between May 25, 2018 and Jan. 28 originated from the Netherlands, Germany and the U.K.—the three countries that had the highest number of reported breaches with 15,400, 12,600 and 10,600, respectively.
“One of the reasons, we think, is that because of the GDPR legal system … you typically notify in the country where you've got your European HQ,” Patrick Van Eecke, a DLA Piper partner in Brussels, said Monday in a phone interview.
He added the Netherlands is a popular headquarters location for data-focused companies, which could further explain why the country had so many breach reports. Also, the Netherlands was the only country in the EU that had a pre-GDPR data breach notification requirement, according to Van Eecke.
While data regulators in the Netherlands and a few other countries have experience processing and investigating breach notifications, many others have been struggling with their new responsibilities, according to Van Eecke. In helping to compile the survey, he found that data regulators throughout the EU are swamped in backlogs of breach reports.
➤➤ Want to read more about how new tech is challenging old laws and changing the legal profession? Sign up for What's Next, a weekly email briefing on the future of law.
Many companies are inundating authorities with reports because they're erring on the side of caution and reporting relatively minor incidents, including lost thumb drives, to avoid potential sanctions for violating GDPR notification requirements, Van Eecke said.
The GDPR requires companies and other data collectors to notify regulators whenever they experience a breach that has a likely risk of harming users. Notification must typically occur within 72 hours of a company becoming aware of an incident.
Failure to comply with the GDPR notification requirements can lead to maximum fines of 10 million euros, equivalent to more than $11.2 million, or up to 2 percent of a company's total worldwide revenue from the previous financial year, whichever is greater.
While a few countries have published breach notification reports, the majority of EU countries have yet to make the data publicly available or easily accessible.
“That was the main reason we wanted to come up with a survey,” Van Eecke said. “For at least 60 percent of the countries, we couldn't find any publicly available numbers. We really had to call them and push them.”
He stressed that the countries in question “don't want to hide” their breach reports and are simply dealing with a steep learning curve. Several of the countries contacted as part of the survey said they planned to release breach reports, but needed more time to do so.
“It's ended up being way more than the authorities can manage,” said Jim Halpert, a DLA Piper partner in Washington, D.C., who represents companies on a broad range of data management issues.
“The main takeaway,” he added, “is that this is still early days, but there's a real obligation in Europe [to comply with the GDPR] and it's going to be important to review and upgrade your security programs in Europe for personal data.”
The 59,000 reported breaches highlighted in the survey ranged from minor incidents, “such as errant emails sent to the wrong recipient, to major cyberhacks affecting millions of individuals and making front-page headlines,” the report stated.
So far, 91 fines have been handed out for GDPR-related infractions, though not all of the violations were the result of data breaches, according to the survey. For instance, French regulators slapped Google with a more than $56 million fine Jan. 21 under the GDPR for allegedly obtaining users' data without their permission for advertising purposes. Google is appealing the fine.
In Germany, authorities levied 63 GDPR fines, including sanctions of more than $22,500 against social media company Knuddels, a chat platform that allegedly failed to protect users' personal data, opening the door for a breach that exposed more than 800,000 email addresses and 1.8 million usernames and passwords.
The Knuddels case was noteworthy, in part, because under Germany's Federal Data Protection Act the details that a company reveals in a breach notification cannot be used as evidence to support an administrative fine against that same company, unless it consents.
But German authorities apparently set the federal laws aside and used Knuddels' breach report—without the company's consent—as a basis for the fine, according to the survey. Like Google, Knuddels is appealing the fine.
“Germany stands out because of its stringent approach when enforcing and applying the GDPR,” Van Eecke said. “You need to be very well prepared if you go into a discussion with one of the German data protection authorities. They know what they're talking about and they're not afraid of sanctioning.”
So far, most of the GDPR sanctions, aside from the fine against Google, have been relatively low.
In Austria, for example, a company running a sports betting café was fined about $5,400 for allegedly operating an unlawful CCTV system that recorded part of a public sidewalks. And Cyprus reported four fines totaling about $12,900.
But fines could soon rise alongside increased enforcement activity. The survey predicted that “2019 will see more fines for tens and potentially hundreds of millions of euros, as regulators deal with the backlog of GDPR data breach notifications.”
Read More:
Report: GDPR-Compliant Companies Experience Shorter Sales Delays
In-House is Eyeing Outside Counsel's Data Management More Closely
A Plea for Protection: Will a Federal Data Privacy Law Save the Day?
Cisco's Chief Legal Officer Expresses Support for American Version of GDPR
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 2Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
- 3High-Speed Crash With Police Vehicle Nets $1.6 Million Settlement
- 4Embracing a ‘Stronger Together’ Mentality: Collaboration Best Practices for Attorneys
- 5Selling Law. How to Get Hired, Paid and Rehired
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250