Art. 25 GDPR · Chapter IV: Controller and processor · Section 1: General obligations
Article 25 GDPR: Data protection by design and by default
Text as of 28 October 2026 Reviewed by Sergio Maldonado Elvira on 29 October 2026
Summary (not the official text)
The controller must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, such as pseudonymisation, designed to implement the data protection principles effectively (data protection by design). It must also ensure that, by default, only the personal data necessary for each specific purpose are processed (data protection by default).
Official text
Taking into account the state of the art, the cost of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for rights and freedoms of natural persons posed by the processing, the controller shall, both at the time of the determination of the means for processing and at the time of the processing itself, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, such as pseudonymisation, which are designed to implement data-protection principles, such as data minimisation, in an effective manner and to integrate the necessary safeguards into the processing in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation and protect the rights of data subjects.
The controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring that, by default, only personal data which are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing are processed. That obligation applies to the amount of personal data collected, the extent of their processing, the period of their storage and their accessibility. In particular, such measures shall ensure that by default personal data are not made accessible without the individual's intervention to an indefinite number of natural persons.
An approved certification mechanism pursuant to Article 42 may be used as an element to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.
Source: Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Official Journal L 119, 4.5.2016, as corrected. Only the text published in the Official Journal is authentic. © European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu
Text as of 28 October 2026.
This is reference material, not legal advice.
Related recitals
This list is under review.
Court of Justice judgments
- C-492/23, X v Russmedia Digital SRL and Inform Media Press SRL
Judgment of 2 December 2025ECLI:EU:C:2025:935
An online marketplace operator is a controller of personal data in ads published on its site; before publication it must identify ads with sensitive data, check the advertiser is the person concerned or has explicit consent, take security measures against copying, and cannot rely on the hosting exemptions of the e-Commerce Directive for these GDPR duties.
EDPB guidance
- Guidelines 02/2025 on processing of personal data through blockchain technologies
EDPB 02/2025FinalFirst published 14 April 2025Final version 7 July 2026
Version 2 is final.
- Guidelines 01/2025 on pseudonymisation
EDPB 01/2025Draft for consultationFirst published 17 January 2025
Consultation closed 14 March 2025; final version not yet published.
- Guidelines 03/2022 on deceptive design patterns in social media platform interfaces
EDPB 03/2022FinalFirst published 21 March 2022Final version 24 February 2023
Version 1 was titled 'dark patterns'.
- Guidelines 01/2020 on processing personal data in the context of connected vehicles and mobility related applications
EDPB 01/2020FinalFirst published 7 February 2020Final version 9 March 2021
Final version 2.0.
- Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default
EDPB 04/2019FinalFirst published 20 November 2019Final version 20 October 2020
Version 2.0 is final.
Fines
Amounts are shown in the currency in which the fine was imposed.
- IQVIA Solutions Italy S.r.l: EUR 7,000,000
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, ItalyDecision of 23 September 2026Appeal status: unknown
Health-analytics firm treated a database of about one million GP patients as anonymous when a persistent identifier made them re-identifiable; no legal basis, no information, no DPIA, weak retention and security.
- McDonald’s Polska Sp. z o.o.: PLN 16,932,657
Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (Polish Data Protection Authority), PolandAnnounced on 21 July 2025Appeal status: unknown
Outsourced staff scheduling without risk analysis or supervision of the processor, so employee data (names, PESEL or passport numbers, shifts) ended up in a public directory.
Not fully confirmed: Decision date not shown on the page (announcement date used). Three fines: PLN 1,632,063 + 13,600,528 + 1,700,066. The processor was fined PLN 183,858 in total. Articles taken from the narrative; the page does not give a single list of infringed articles.
- Luka Inc.: EUR 5,000,000
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, ItalyDecision of 10 April 2025Appeal status: unknown
AI companion chatbot ran with no identified legal basis, an inadequate privacy policy and no effective age verification despite excluding minors.
- Meta Platforms Ireland Limited: EUR 251,000,000
Data Protection Commission (Ireland), IrelandDecision of 12 December 2024Appeal status: under appeal
A 2018 'View As' token flaw exposed about 29 million Facebook accounts (about 3 million in the EU/EEA); incomplete breach notification and poor design and default safeguards.
- Posti: EUR 2,400,000
Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto (Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman, Finland), FinlandDecision of 13 November 2024Appeal status: unknown
Automatically opened an OmaPosti electronic mailbox for customers, tied to other services, with a pre-ticked box and without clear information.
Not fully confirmed: Confirmed on the EDPB news page. Fine for Art. 5 and 6(1); reprimand and order for Art. 13; instruction on Art. 25. Company name given only as 'Posti'.
- Foodinho s.r.l.: EUR 5,000,000
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, ItalyDecision of 13 November 2024Appeal status: unknown
Glovo-group delivery platform geolocated over 35,000 riders even off shift, used facial recognition for identity checks, made automated decisions (including deactivations) without safeguards, and let other group companies see rider data.
- Enel Energia S.p.A.: EUR 79,107,101
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, ItalyDecision of 8 February 2024Appeal status: upheld
Telemarketing: weak control of sales-agent access let unauthorised agencies place contracts obtained through unlawful calls into the company's systems; failures of security, accountability, privacy by design and processor contracts.
- TikTok Technology Limited: EUR 345,000,000
Data Protection Commission (Ireland), IrelandDecision of 1 September 2023Appeal status: under appeal
Child users' accounts were public by default, 'Family Pairing' was weak, and children were not told clearly about the settings; the EDPB added a fairness ('dark patterns') finding.
- Meta Platforms Ireland Limited: EUR 265,000,000
Data Protection Commission (Ireland), IrelandDecision of 25 November 2022Appeal status: under appeal
Facebook search and contact-importer tools allowed scraping of a large dataset of user data; failure of data protection by design and by default.
- Meta Platforms Ireland Limited: EUR 405,000,000
Data Protection Commission (Ireland), IrelandDecision of 2 September 2022Appeal status: under appeal
Instagram let 13 to 17 year olds run business accounts that published their phone numbers or emails, and set child accounts to public by default.
- IAB Europe: EUR 250,000
Autorité de protection des données / Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (Belgium), BelgiumDecision of 2 February 2022Appeal status: upheld
The ad-industry Transparency and Consent Framework processed users' preference strings without a legal basis, with vague information, weak safeguards, no records, no DPIA and no DPO.
- Deliveroo Italy s.r.l.: EUR 2,500,000
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, ItalyDecision of 22 July 2021Appeal status: unknown
Food-delivery platform managed about 8,000 riders through opaque algorithms (booking and work allocation), collected excessive data including location, and lacked a DPIA and proper records.
- Deutsche Wohnen SE: EUR 14,500,000
Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BlnBDI), GermanyDecision of 30 October 2019Appeal status: reduced
Property company kept years-old tenant documents (pay slips, bank statements, tax and health-insurance data) in an archive system with no means of deleting data no longer needed.