Data Protection Monitor
Global Privacy & Data Protection Intelligence

Macau SAR, China Data Protection & Privacy Regulation

MO schema gdpri-v2 trajectory: not yet assessed overlaps: artificial-intelligence

Last updated · 10 categories · 30 claims · 24 sources in the cumulative register

Macau's data-protection regime shows a possible administrative reorganisation this cycle: a Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) appears to be established under Administrative Regulation No.

Data collected Data published

AI-assembled from cited sources

Not covered: Lawful Processing & Special Data, Data Subject Rights, Controller/Processor Duties, Sectoral Watch, Algorithmic, Biometric & Surveillance Governance, Children & Vulnerable Groups, Enforcement & Redress. Not fully checked this cycle: Regulator & Framework (3 open gaps).

Evidence re-verified: ·Position last changed: ·
Record history & provenance ▾

Methodology & record provenance: Module confidence is derived from the underlying claims (source tier and primary excerpt retention), while statutory legal force is tracked independently.

Review status: AI-synthesised · Tier-1/2 verified · As-of date: 2026-10-26

Framework postureMonitored baseline0 of 10 modules populated · AI-synthesised · Tier-1/2 verified
Lead supervisory authorityPersonal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB)Primary statutory & supervisory perimeter
Next milestone (> 2026-10-26)None scheduledNo dated future statutory milestone on record
Module coverage & confidence0 / 10 modules assessed0 Confirmed · 0 Probable · 0 Uncertain · 10 Not yet assessed

Jurisdiction lead brief

Latest update · 25 October 2026

Lead Signal

Macau's data-protection regulatory identity has been corrected as at 25 October 2026: the Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) is confirmed as the current supervisory authority, established under Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023 and in force from 1 February 2024, superseding the former Office for Personal Data Protection that had operated as a temporary unit since 2007. This is a correction to the regulator's identity and legal form rather than a change in the underlying law, which remains the Personal Data Protection Act, Law No. 8/2005.

Key regulatory facts for Macau SAR, China
Regulatory DimensionMacau SAR, China Standing Position
JurisdictionMacau SAR, China (MO)
Regulatory ScopeData Protection & Privacy Regulation (10 modules, 30 sourced findings)
Primary Instruments CitedPDPB official homepage, Chambers Data Protection & Privacy 2026, Macau chapter, Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau, Consentstack Macau PDPA guide, Global Legal Post
Last Confirmed / Updated2026-11-04 (24 sources in cumulative register)

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Supervisory authorityPersonal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB)

Sub-modules (1)

Regulator And AuthorityNot assessed

No narrative recorded for this sub-module.

Claims (4):

  • Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) establishes: Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Art. 1, establishes PDPB as the public department responsible for PDPA (Law No. 8/2005) obligations; entered into force 1 February 2024, restructuring the former OPDP into a permanent bureau under the Chief Executive's authority.
  • The GPDP is a genuinely separate supervisory authority from the AMCM (the financial/crypto regulator).
  • Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — Former Office for Personal Data Protection (OPDP/GPDP, est. 2007 as temporary unit) as the permanent regulator from 1 February 2024.
  • Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Art. 1, establishes PDPB as the public department responsible for PDPA (Law No. 8/2005) obligations; entered into force 1 February 2024, restructuring the former OPDP into a permanent bureau under the Chief Executive's authority.
Category narrative 236 words

Regulator & Framework

Macau's data-protection framework continues to rest on the omnibus Personal Data Protection Act (Law 8/2005), with the data-protection authority historically known as the Gabinete para a Protecção de Dados Pessoais (GPDP). This cycle surfaces a possible administrative reorganisation: reports indicate a Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) is set up in accordance with Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, which governs the organisation and operation of the Personal Data Protection Bureau. The precise relationship between this newly reported PDPB and the legacy GPDP naming has not been resolved this cycle, and it is unclear whether dspdp.gov.mo, the domain associated with the PDPB reporting, is now the authoritative regulator domain in place of the historical GPDP identity.

Periodic update · new data 2026-11-04

Regulator & Framework

Macau's general legal regime for personal-data processing continues to rest on Act 8/2005, the Personal Data Protection Act, which entered into force on 1 February 2006, one hundred and eighty days after its signing and publication on 10 August 2005. The Act applies to any controller domiciled or based in Macau SAR, or to a controller using a computer or data-communication network access provider established in Macau, a territorial-scope test that has not changed as at this review.

A question has surfaced over which body currently holds regulatory authority under this framework. Secondary commentary indicates that the Office for Personal Data Protection, commonly referenced as GPDP or OPDP, may have been reconstituted in 2023 into the Personal Data Protection Bureau under Administrative Regulation No 42/2023. This succession is not yet reconciled against the naming used elsewhere in current reporting, and no primary-source confirmation settles which designation is now authoritative. Separately, guidance attributed to the regulator has flagged that mainland China's Personal Information Protection Law applies extraterritorially to Macau-based controllers that process the data of individuals in mainland China, operating alongside the domestic Act 8/2005 regime and carrying stricter sanctions where it applies. The date of that guidance has not been established.

Outlook

Resolution of the regulator's current institutional name and legal successor would clarify whose guidance, enforcement actions and public statements should be treated as authoritative going forward. Until a primary-source text is located, both designations should be read as potentially referring to the same body at different points in time rather than as two distinct regulators.

3 earlier distinct update(s)
Periodic update · new data 2026-10-25

Regulator & Framework

Macau's data-protection framework is anchored in the Personal Data Protection Act, Law No. 8/2005, which remains the operative statute as at 25 October 2026. The current supervisory authority is the Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB), established as a public department by Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023 and in force from 1 February 2024, with responsibility for carrying out the legal obligations set out under Law No. 8/2005. The PDPB supersedes the former Office for Personal Data Protection, which had operated as a temporary unit since 2007; this is a correction to the regulator's organisational history and current legal form rather than any change to the underlying statute.

The Act's territorial scope extends to data controllers and processors located in Macau, and to those outside Macau that use equipment located in Macau, establishing an equipment-based test for extraterritorial reach. A data controller, or its representative, must notify the PDPB in writing within eight days after starting any wholly or partly automatic processing operation intended to serve a single purpose or related purposes; the specific statutory article underlying this notification duty has not yet been confirmed from primary legal text.

Separately from its general data-protection remit, the PDPB is empowered under Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023 to issue binding opinions in accordance with Law No. 2/2012, the Legal Regime of Video Surveillance in Public Spaces, giving the Bureau a defined supervisory role over public-space video-surveillance matters that sits alongside its core registration and oversight functions under the Personal Data Protection Act.

Outlook

The principal open item is confirmation of the pinpoint statutory article for the eight-day notification duty, which has not been verified against primary text in this window. No legislative amendment to the Personal Data Protection Act or to Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023 was identified in this window. Future developments to watch include any further clarification of the PDPB's notification and registration procedures, and any formal guidance issued under its video-surveillance binding-opinion power.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

Regulator & Framework

Macau's data-protection regulator is the Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB), established under Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, which took effect on 1 February 2024. The PDPB succeeded the former Office for Personal Data Protection (OPDP), and this is a material naming correction from any prior-cycle reference to a 'GPDP' designation, which this cycle's evidence does not support. The PDPB's own website independently confirms its establishment, stating it was set up in accordance with Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Organization and Operation of Personal Data Protection Bureau, giving the succession fact a primary-source basis in addition to the secondary-source account that first surfaced it.

The substantive legal framework the PDPB administers has not changed: the Personal Data Protection Act (Law No. 8/2005) remains Macau's primary data-protection legislation, and it is based on the former EU Data Protection Directive rather than the General Data Protection Regulation that superseded that Directive in the European Union. No amendment to this Act was found this cycle. The PDPB operates as the SAR's data-protection authority under this unchanged statutory framework, with the regulatory-identity correction being purely institutional in nature -- a change in which body holds the regulator's functions, not a change in what those functions are or in the statute that defines them.

This correction matters for any standing jurisdiction record or ongoing compliance reference that currently names the former OPDP or a 'GPDP' entity as Macau's data-protection authority: such references should now be updated to the Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB), with Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023 cited as the governing instrument and 1 February 2024 as its effective date.

Outlook

No further change to Macau's regulator identity or core statutory framework is indicated by this cycle's evidence. The Personal Data Protection Act (Law No. 8/2005) remains the operative legislation, now administered under the corrected PDPB designation, and any future amendment to either the Act or the PDPB's constituting regulation would be the next material development to watch for.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-04

Regulator & Framework

The Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) is confirmed as the current regulator responsible for Macau's data-protection obligations under Law No. 8/2005 (the PDPA). This status is established by Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Article 1, which entered into force on 1 February 2024 and restructured the former Office for Personal Data Protection into a permanent bureau operating under the authority of the Chief Executive. This is a structural correction to the regulatory-framework record: material referencing the former OPDP or a GPDP designation reflects a pre-2024 state of affairs and should be read as superseded. The underlying statute, the PDPA (Law No. 8/2005), itself remains unchanged by this administrative restructuring; what has changed is the institutional body charged with administering it, not the substantive data-protection rules themselves.

The practical effect of this confirmation is primarily one of accurate attribution rather than substantive regulatory change: any notification, registration, complaint, or enforcement action under the PDPA since 1 February 2024 runs through the PDPB as a permanent statutory bureau, rather than through the prior, less formally constituted office structure. No further change to the regulator's powers, structure, or statutory mandate was located this period beyond the confirmation of its current designation.

Outlook

No near-term change to the regulator's identity or structure is indicated. The marker to watch is whether the PDPB, now operating on a more clearly established permanent-bureau footing, issues further administrative regulations or guidance expanding its own practice beyond the identity-establishing Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, particularly given its separately-noted recent addition of a Greater Bay Area cross-border standard-contract mechanism to its notification form.

Sources and claims (10)
  1. Confirmed PDPB official homepage — Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) establishes: Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Art. 1, establishes PDPB as the public department responsible for PDPA (Law No. 8/2005) obligations; entered into force 1 February 2024, restructuring the former OPDP into a permanent bureau under the Chief Executive's authority. observed
  2. Probable Chambers Data Protection & Privacy 2026, Macau chapter — The GPDP is a genuinely separate supervisory authority from the AMCM (the financial/crypto regulator). observed
  3. Probable Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau — A Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) is set up in accordance with Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Organization and Operation of Personal Data Protection Bureau. observed
  4. Confirmed Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau — Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Art. 1, establishing PDPB as a public department responsible for carrying out the legal obligations under Law No. 8/2005; in force from 1 February 2024. observed
  5. Probable Chambers Data Protection & Privacy 2026, Macau chapter — Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — Former Office for Personal Data Protection (OPDP/GPDP, est. 2007 as temporary unit) as the permanent regulator from 1 February 2024. observed
  6. Probable Consentstack Macau PDPA guide — Personal Data Protection Act (Law No. 8/2005) — Data controllers/processors in Macau, and those outside Macau using equipment located in Macau. observed
  7. Probable Global Legal Post — Macau data controllers — PDPB in writing within eight days after starting any wholly or partly automatic processing operation intended to serve a single purpose or related purposes. observed
  8. Confirmed Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau — Act 8/2005 is Macau's core data-protection statute, in force since 1 February 2006. observed
  9. Confirmed Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau — Act 8/2005 applies to controllers domiciled, based, or using Macau-situated network infrastructure. observed
  10. Confirmed Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau — Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023, Art. 1, establishes PDPB as the public department responsible for PDPA (Law No. 8/2005) obligations; entered into force 1 February 2024, restructuring the former OPDP into a permanent bureau under the Chief Executive's authority. observed

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Absence reason not determinableNo narrative exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
Sources and claims (1)
  1. Probable https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/data-protection-privacy-2026/macau-sar-china/trends-and-developments — Personal Data Protection Act, Art. 7 — Sensitive personal data includes philosophical/political beliefs, political association/trade-union membership, religion, privacy, racial/ethnic origin, and health/sex-life data including genetic data; processing prohibited as a general rule.

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Absence reason not determinableNo narrative exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
Sources and claims (1)
  1. Probable DataGuidance GDPR v PDPA Macau comparison — PDPA Articles 10 and 11 — Under Articles 10 and 11 of the PDPA, data subjects have the right to information and right of access. observed

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Category narrative 247 words

Controller/Processor Duties

The Personal Data Protection Act does not require specific action in the event of a data breach, meaning there is no standalone PDPA breach-notification obligation running to the data-protection authority or affected data subjects. Reports suggest this is a structural feature of the statute itself rather than an unaddressed drafting gap awaiting amendment. The absence of a breach-notification duty is only partially offset by a separate channel: the Personal Data Protection Bureau is a member of Macau's Cybersecurity Committee, and critical-infrastructure operators are separately obliged to report cybersecurity incidents to that committee. This creates a narrower, sector-specific notification pathway that applies to critical-infrastructure operators experiencing cybersecurity incidents, which may or may not overlap with what would, in a jurisdiction with a general breach-notification law, be treated as a reportable personal-data breach.

No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.

Sources and claims (1)
  1. Probable https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/data-protection-privacy-2026/macau-sar-china/trends-and-developments — PDPA breach-notification provisions — The PDPA does not require specific actions in the event of data breaches; the PDPB is a member of Macau's Cybersecurity Committee, to which critical-infrastructure operators must report cybersecurity incidents.

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Sub-modules (1)

Sccs And BcrsNot assessed

No narrative recorded for this sub-module.

Claims (3):

  • Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) introduces: PDPB added a new schedule to its personal-data-processing notification form allowing controllers to register a standard contract for cross-border personal-data flows within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.
  • Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Standard Contract — The GBA SCC facilitation mechanism applies only between Guangdong province and Hong Kong; it does not support transfers from or to the Macau SAR.
  • Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — PDPB added a new schedule to its personal-data-processing notification form allowing controllers to register a standard contract for cross-border personal-data flows within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.
Category narrative 220 words

Cross-Border & Adequacy

Article 20 of the Personal Data Protection Act establishes the framework for cross-border transfers of personal data out of Macau. While the default position under the PDPA is understood to require prior authorisation from the data-protection authority for such transfers, Article 20 carves out circumstances in which transfer may proceed without that prior approval, including where the data subject has given explicit consent or where the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract. This derogation gives controllers a materially faster compliance pathway in the specific circumstances it covers, avoiding the delay associated with seeking prior authorisation on a case-by-case basis.

No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.

Sources and claims (6)
  1. Probable GPDP (Macau) — Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) introduces: PDPB added a new schedule to its personal-data-processing notification form allowing controllers to register a standard contract for cross-border personal-data flows within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. observed
  2. Probable Global Legal Post — PDPA Article 20 — Article 20 of the PDPA enables cross-border data transfers without prior GPDP approval in certain circumstances, such as explicit consent or contractual necessity. observed
  3. Probable Hogan Lovells — Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Standard Contract — The GBA SCC facilitation mechanism applies only between Guangdong province and Hong Kong; it does not support transfers from or to the Macau SAR. observed
  4. Probable Lexology — Personal Data Protection Act, Art. 20 — Cross-border data transfers from Macau generally require PDPB authorisation, subject to exceptions under Art. 20 (e.g. explicit consent, contractual necessity). observed
  5. Probable Chambers Data Protection & Privacy 2026, Macau chapter — Macau has no adequacy-list framework; outbound transfers require prior regulator authorisation on a case-by-case basis. observed
  6. Probable DataGuidance GDPR v PDPA Macau comparison — Personal Data Protection Bureau (PDPB) — PDPB added a new schedule to its personal-data-processing notification form allowing controllers to register a standard contract for cross-border personal-data flows within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. observed

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Absence reason not determinableNo narrative exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
Sources and claims (2)
  1. Probable Macau Business — PDPB — Macau institutions dealing with mainland-China-related matters to closely monitor and strictly comply with mainland China's PIPL given its extraterritorial reach, in parallel with PDPA compliance. observed
  2. Uncertain Consentstack Macau PDPA guide — GPDP's guidance flags PIPL's extraterritorial applicability to Macau-based controllers alongside the domestic PDPA. observed

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Sub-modules (1)

Direct MarketingNot assessed

No narrative recorded for this sub-module.

Claims (2):

  • Advertising Law (Law No. 7/2026) establishes: Law No. 7/2026, passed 28 April 2026, published 11 May 2026, establishes a technology-neutral general advertising regime covering internet, app and social-media advertising; enters into force 1 January 2027, replacing Law No. 7/89/M.
  • GPDP fined a company MOP 560,000 on 26 January 2022 for unsolicited telemarketing in violation of the PDPA, with corrective measures including a temporary processing ban and data erasure.
Category narrative 312 words

AdTech & Commercial Privacy

Macau's Legislative Assembly passed a new general Advertising Law, Law No. 7/2026, on 28 April 2026, published 11 May 2026. The law establishes a technology-neutral advertising regime that explicitly covers internet, app and social-media advertising, and is enacted but not yet effective: it enters into force on 1 January 2027, at which point it replaces the former Law No. 7/89/M. This is a material forthcoming development for commercial-privacy practice in Macau, since it is the first general advertising statute to explicitly extend to digital and social-media advertising channels, areas the prior 1989 law did not contemplate.

No periodic updates recorded in this cycle

Sources and claims (2)
  1. Probable Lexology — Advertising Law (Law No. 7/2026) establishes: Law No. 7/2026, passed 28 April 2026, published 11 May 2026, establishes a technology-neutral general advertising regime covering internet, app and social-media advertising; enters into force 1 January 2027, replacing Law No. 7/89/M. observed
  2. Probable DataGuidance — GPDP fined a company MOP 560,000 on 26 January 2022 for unsolicited telemarketing in violation of the PDPA, with corrective measures including a temporary processing ban and data erasure. observed

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Absence reason not determinableNo narrative exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
Sources and claims (2)
  1. Probable https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/data-protection-privacy-2026/macau-sar-china/trends-and-developments — Macau AI privacy framework — Macau does not have specific privacy requirements for the use of personal data in the context of AI.
  2. Confirmed Macau SAR Personal Data Protection Bureau — PDPB — Issue binding opinions in accordance with Law No. 2/2012 (Legal Regime of Video Surveillance in Public Spaces), per Administrative Regulation No. 42/2023. observed

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Absence reason not determinableNo narrative exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

#

No standing position recorded for this category.

Category narrative 246 words

Enforcement & Redress

Macau's data-protection enforcement record shows a declining penalty rate across the two most recent reported years: investigations by the data-protection authority resulted in penalties in 25% of cases in 2023, falling to 17% of cases in 2024. This decline could reflect a genuine reduction in enforcement intensity, an administrative transition in capacity possibly connected to the reported GPDP-to-PDPB reorganisation, or simply normal year-to-year variation in case outcomes; the evidence available this cycle does not allow these explanations to be distinguished with confidence.

Periodic update · new data 2026-11-04

Enforcement & Redress

Act 8/2005 contains administrative fine provisions for breaches of Macau's data-protection regime, but the exact maximum penalty figure cannot currently be stated with confidence. Secondary commentary offers figures ranging from MOP 100,000 to MOP 2,400,000 depending on the class of violation, and no primary-source, article-level figure from the statute itself has been confirmed to reconcile this range. The dispute is reported as a gap in secondary sourcing rather than as a recent change to the statute's penalty structure, which has not been amended as far as current evidence shows.

Outlook

Until the primary statutory text is reconciled against secondary commentary, the maximum financial exposure under Act 8/2005 should be treated as a range rather than a fixed figure. Clarification would also bear on the broader institutional question of which body is currently empowered to impose these penalties, given the unresolved succession question affecting the regulator's identity.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and claims (5)
  1. Probable https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/data-protection-privacy-2026/macau-sar-china/trends-and-developments — GPDP enforcement activity — GPDP investigations resulted in enforcement penalties in 25% of cases in 2023 and 17% of cases in 2024.
  2. Probable https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/data-protection-privacy-2026/macau-sar-china/trends-and-developments — Macau data-protection redress regime — There is no collective redress mechanism for protection of the collective interests of data subjects in Macau.
  3. Probable PDPB official homepage — PDPB — Citizen complaints of suspected illegal use of personal data or invasion of privacy, as one of its fundamental tasks. observed
  4. Uncertain Lektou — PDPB has shifted focus from education to increased enforcement, levying fines for non-compliance in recent years, per law-firm commentary. observed
  5. Probable Chambers Data Protection & Privacy 2025, Macau — PDPB — Administrative-nature provisions of the PDPA under the PDPA and Administrative Regulation 42/2023; criminal cases are reported to and handled by the Public Prosecutor's Office. observed
No categories match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Provenance and declared absence

Disclosure model: category cards load OPEN; narratives render in full; standing narratives load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.

Sub-modules are DP-specific nested subsections with their own real per-sub-module traffic light, rendered under each category across all regulatory modules.

Traffic-light dots are REAL data (baseline.<category>.traffic_light), not renderer-invented taxonomy, and are never suppressed -- unlike WPM, where a RAG dot would be forbidden as invented severity.

Family/accent taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field; it decorates the RAG dot, it does not replace it. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score. Not shown on this page.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-11-04. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 10 categories, 3 sub-module(s), 30 claim(s) (30 category placement(s)), 24 source(s) in the cumulative register.

Audit trail

Machine checkChallenged on 24 Oct 2026: upheld (9 confirmed against the cited source; 11 could not be checked). An automated, adversarial test run by a second model; no person has assessed the result.

Think something on this page is wrong? Report an error.

GDPR article map

Cross-reference: which category/sub-module covers each UK GDPR article (14 mapped).

Show article map
GDPR article to category mapping
ArticleCategorySub-module
Art. 5Controller/Processor Dutiesaccountability and dpia
Art. 6Lawful Processing & Special Datalawful bases
Art. 7Lawful Processing & Special Dataconsent thresholds
Art. 9Lawful Processing & Special Dataspecial categories
Art. 22Algorithmic, Biometric & Surveillance Governanceautomated decision making transparency
Art. 25Controller/Processor Dutiesaccountability and dpia
Art. 28Controller/Processor Dutiesjoint controller arrangements
Art. 30Controller/Processor Dutiesropa requirements
Art. 35Controller/Processor Dutiesaccountability and dpia
Art. 13-22Data Subject Rightsaccess right
Art. 32-34Controller/Processor Dutiessecurity measures
Art. 37-39Controller/Processor Dutiesdpo requirements
Art. 44-49Cross-Border & Adequacytransfer mechanisms
Art. 77-84Enforcement & Redressregulator powers and penalties