header-logo header-logo

10 July 2019
Issue: 7848 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

‘Gloves off’ as first GDPR fine issued

Business fears about a tough GDPR regime have been confirmed after the first company to be penalised, British Airways, received a £183.39m fine.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) issued the penalty this week for a data breach that compromised 500,000 BA customers. Businesses have waited since 25 May 2018 to get an idea of the possible size of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) fines.

BA has said it will make representations to the ICO about the size of the proposed fine and intends to appeal.

David White, commercial and IP associate at Rollits, said the fine ‘demonstrates that the ICO is not afraid to use the weapons at its disposal to hammer home the importance of data protection. 

‘Any organisation that has ignored to its data protection responsibilities, or seen data protection compliance as a “tick-box” exercise, should take stock: the gloves are off.’

The BA fine represents about 1.5% of its annual worldwide turnover. Under the GDPR, organisations can be fined up to 20 million euros or 4% of annual worldwide turnover for a serious breach, whichever is highest, and 10 million euros or 2% of annual worldwide turnover for a less serious breach. This is considerably higher than the maximum £500,000 fines possible under the Data Protection Act.

Raoul Parekh, partner at GQ|Littler, said: ‘The first GDPR fine is the display of shock and awe that many feared.

‘Politicians and pressure groups have been lobbying for heavy penalties and it seems they have listened. The ICO has used its first announcement of intention to fine as a major deterrent to ensure businesses take GDPR extremely seriously.

‘British Airways has acted very responsibly since the breach was discovered, notifying the ICO and co-operating with the regulator to fix the issues and repair the damage. For the ICO, though, businesses need prevention and not just cure if they are to avoid fines.’

Issue: 7848 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll