header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 April 2018 / David White , Tom Morrison
Issue: 7788 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Mind the GDPR (Pt 3)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7788_morrison

In the third of a series of articles, Rollits LLP turn the spotlight on processors & data processing agreements

  • How the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) impacts on processors.
  • Issues associated with data processing agreements.

So far in this series on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) we have provided an overview of the key provisions under GDPR, considered issues regarding the appointment of a Data Protection Officer and looked at how to obtain valid consent (see ‘Mind the GDPR’, 167 NLJ 7762 & ‘Mind the GDPR (Pt 2)’ 167 NLJ 7774). Our focus now turns to how the GDPR impacts on processors and issues associated with data processing agreements.

Processors

The GDPR defines a ‘processor’ as being the ‘natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of a controller’. If an organisation can determine the purposes and means of the processing, that organisation is the controller with respect to that data processing. The GDPR does

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll