US Companies Repeating Data Privacy Compliance Mistakes, Study Shows
Half of U.S. companies included in this new survey missed the GDPR deadline, and 70% said their compliance systems won't adapt to new regulations. Despite those foreboding findings, the majority of companies said they'd could meet the CCPA compliance deadline, which is less than seven months away.
May 16, 2019 at 09:20 AM
3 minute read
U.S. companies haven't learned much from the missteps they made while preparing for the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, suggests a new study on data privacy regulation compliance.
About half of the survey respondents whose companies are affected by GDPR revealed they had failed to meet last May's deadline to comply with the regulations—and 70% said the data privacy compliance systems they established or plan to have in place are incapable of adapting to new regulations.
"The interesting thing here was that, in preparing to become GDPR ready, a lot of the companies tried to build something in-house to try to scramble, if you will, to become GDPR ready," said Daniel Barber, co-founder and CEO of DataGrail.
The San Mateo, California-based data privacy management software company surveyed 301 U.S.-based privacy professionals in information technology, operations, legal, and risk and compliance in April for its report, "The Age of Privacy: The Cost of Continuous Compliance."
While most respondents reported it took them at least seven months to prepare for GDPR, 71% believed they could be ready for the California Consumer Privacy Act compliance deadline in less than six months. The CCPA deadline is Jan. 1, 2020.
The majority of companies are still approaching privacy regulations on a case-by-case basis, and half are using manual processes to manage GDPR privacy rights requests, which often involves a couple dozen employees and "thousands of touch points with the potential to introduce human error," the report states.
Barber said the study's findings show that "most companies still rely on piecemeal technology solutions and manual processes, when they should be turning to privacy management solutions purpose-built for privacy regulations."
He added, "Companies will need to integrate and operationalize their privacy management to avoid the time-consuming and error-prone manual processes to comply with these regulations."
According to the report, most companies said the murkiness and complexities of GDPR make compliance a challenge.
Other major hurdles included lacking the time and human resources to plan and implement compliance programs and struggling to integrate compliance solutions across multiple systems and services.
The top challenges for CCPA compliance were virtually the same as those listed for GDPR.
Other findings from the report include:
- The average company held between 2,000 and 4,000 hours of meetings preparing for GDPR, while some spent more than 9,000 hours, or more than a year, in meetings.
- Nearly 80 percent of companies reported shelling out at least $100,000 on GDPR and CCPA compliance, while 20% have spent more than $1 million.
- Nearly 60% of companies have at least 26 employees managing data subject access requests under GDPR, and 84% have a system in place to help prevent human errors that could arise during the process.
Read More:
Getting Ready for the U.S.'s Toughest Privacy Law: What is Personal Information?
A Year After GDPR, GCs Still Explaining Regulation's Requirements
Compliance App Looks for Data Companies Don't Know They're Collecting
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 AllFired by Trump, EEOC's First Blind GC Lands at Nonprofit Targeting Abuses of Power
3 minute readTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
LSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
- 2Divided State Supreme Court Clears the Way for Child Sexual Abuse Cases Against Church, Schools
- 3From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 4‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 5LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
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