The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not prohibit surveillance of employees in the workplace. Still, it requires employers to follow special rules to ensure that the rights and freedoms of employees are protected when processing their personal data. The GDPR applies to any processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU or not. The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the EU by a controller or processor not established in the EU, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the EU.

The GDPR requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent, and based on one of the six legal grounds specified in the regulation. The most relevant legal grounds for employee surveillance are the legitimate interests of the employer, the performance of a contract with the employee, or the compliance with a legal obligation. The GDPR also requires that any processing of personal data must be limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which they are processed, and that the data subjects must be informed of the purposes and the legal basis of the processing, as well as their rights and the safeguards in place to protect their data.

The GDPR also imposes specific obligations and restrictions on the processing of special categories of personal data, such as biometric data, which reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, or which are processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. The processing of such data is prohibited, unless one of the ten exceptions listed in the regulation applies. The most relevant exceptions for employee surveillance are the explicit consent of the data subject, the necessity for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the field of employment and social security and social protection law, or the necessity for reasons of substantial public interest.

The GDPR also sets out the rules and requirements for the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations, which do not ensure an adequate level of data protection. The transfer of such data is only allowed if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, such as binding corporate rules, standard contractual clauses, codes of conduct or certification mechanisms, and if the data subjects have enforceable rights and effective legal remedies.

Based on the scenario, the only condition under which the surveillance system could be used on the personal devices of employees is if the employees give valid consent and the monitoring is narrowly limited to their professional tasks. This option is the most consistent with the GDPR’s principles and requirements, as it:

Is based on a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data, namely the consent of the data subject, which must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous, and which can be withdrawn at any time.

Is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the monitoring, as it only covers the work-related activities and communications of the employees, and excludes the private or personal ones.

Is transparent to the employees, as it informs them of the monitoring and its precise scope, and gives them the opportunity to object or opt out of the monitoring.

Does not involve the processing of special categories of personal data, such as biometric data or data revealing political opinions or trade union membership, which are not necessary or proportionate for the purposes of the monitoring, and which do not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the regulation.

Does not involve the transfer of personal data to a third country, such as China, which does not provide an adequate level of data protection, and which may pose additional risks for the rights and freedoms of the employees.

The other options listed in the question are not valid conditions for using the surveillance system on the personal devices of employees, as they:

Are not based on a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data, as they either rely on the legitimate interests of the employer, which are not balanced with the rights and freedoms of the employees, or on the compliance with a legal obligation, which does not apply to the use of personal devices.

Are not limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the monitoring, as they involve the collection and processing of excessive and irrelevant personal data, such as camera and microphone monitoring, screen captures, keystrokes, and facial recognition data, which go beyond the scope of the work performed by the employees, and intrude into their private or personal sphere.

Are not transparent to the employees, as they do not inform them of the monitoring and its precise scope, and do not give them the opportunity to object or opt out of the monitoring.

Involve the processing of special categories of personal data, such as biometric data or data revealing political opinions or trade union membership, which are not necessary or proportionate for the purposes of the monitoring, and which do not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the regulation.

Involve the transfer of personal data to a third country, such as China, which does not provide an adequate level of data protection, and which may pose additional risks for the rights and freedoms of the employees.

According to Article 32 of the GDPR, the controller and the processor must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk of the processing 1 . The GDPR does not prescribe specific security measures, but rather provides a list of factors to consider when determining the appropriate level of security, such as:

The state of the art and the costs of implementation;

The nature, scope, context and purposes of processing;

The risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

Therefore, the level of security required by the GDPR is not absolute, but relative to the specific circumstances of each processing activity.  The GDPR also encourages the use of codes of conduct and certification mechanisms to demonstrate compliance with the security requirements 1 .

In the scenario, Natural Insight is a processor who receives customer information from BHealthy, a controller, for the purpose of providing pricing services. Natural Insight has a contractual obligation to implement technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of the data, as well as to comply with the GDPR. Natural Insight’s security obligations are not limited to the measures assessed by BHealthy prior to entering into the contract, nor to the level of security that a reasonable data subject would expect. Rather, Natural Insight must take into account the industry practices for protecting customer contact information and purchase history, as well as the potential risks that may arise from the processing, such as data breaches, identity theft, fraud, or discrimination. Natural Insight must also keep up with the state of the art and the costs of implementation, and adjust its security measures accordingly.

According to the CIPP/E study guide, Article 56 of the GDPR establishes the concept of the lead supervisory authority, which is the supervisory authority of the main or single establishment of the data controller or processor in the EU 1 .  The lead supervisory authority has the primary responsibility for dealing with cross-border data processing, in cooperation with other concerned supervisory authorities 1 .  Article 60 of the GDPR requires the lead supervisory authority to cooperate with the other supervisory authorities concerned in an endeavour to reach consensus 2 .  The other supervisory authorities concerned are those that are established in a Member State where the data controller or processor has an establishment or where data subjects are substantially affected or likely to be substantially affected by the processing 2 . In the scenario, T-Craze is a German-headquartered company that has a French affiliate responsible for all marketing and sales activities. Therefore, the French supervisory authority is the lead supervisory authority for the processing of personal data related to the marketing and sales activities of T-Craze, as it is the supervisory authority of the main establishment of the data controller in the EU. The Spanish supervisory authority is a concerned supervisory authority, as it is the supervisory authority of the Member State where data subjects are likely to be substantially affected by the processing, such as Sofia who filed a complaint.  Therefore, the Spanish supervisory authority notifies the French supervisory authority when it opens an investigation into T-Craze based on Sofia’s complaint, in order to cooperate with the lead supervisory authority and seek consensus on the action to be taken 2 .  References:   1 : CIPP/E study guide, page 87;  Art. 56 GDPR ;  Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) 2 : CIPP/E study guide, page 88;  Art. 60 GDPR ;  Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3) .

According to Article 45 of the GDPR, the European Commission has the power to determine whether a third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within a third country, or an international organisation ensures an adequate level of protection of personal data. This means that personal data can flow from the EU and the EEA to that third country without any further safeguard being necessary. The adequacy decision is based on an assessment of the legal framework, the enforcement mechanisms, the access by public authorities, the international commitments and the cooperation with the EU of the third country or organisation. The European Commission also monitors the functioning of the adequacy decisions and can repeal, amend or suspend them if the level of protection is no longer ensured. The European Commission has so far recognised several countries and organisations as providing adequate protection, such as Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the UK and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework.  References:   GDPR Article 45 ,  Data protection adequacy for non-EU countries ,  Adequacy decisions | European Data Protection Board

According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a data processor is a natural or legal person, agency, public authority, or any other body who processes personal data on behalf of a data controller. A data controller is a natural or legal person, agency, public authority, or any other body who, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. The GDPR imposes specific obligations and responsibilities on both data controllers and data processors, and requires them to enter into a written contract or other legal act that sets out the subject matter, duration, nature, and purpose of the processing, as well as the obligations and rights of the data controller.

In this scenario, BHealthy is the data controller, as it determines the purpose and means of collecting and sharing its customer information with Natural Insight. Natural Insight is the data processor, as it processes the customer information on behalf of BHealthy for the purpose of determining the price point for BHealthy’s new sunscreens. However, Natural Insight also intends to use the customer information for its own purpose of improving its algorithms, which may not be aligned with BHealthy’s purpose or instructions. This may constitute a breach of the data processing contract and the GDPR, as the data processor must only process the personal data on documented instructions from the data controller, unless required to do so by EU or member state law (Article 28(3)(a) of the GDPR).

Therefore, the only case in which Natural Insight’s use of BHealthy’s data for improvement of its algorithms would be considered data processor activity is if Natural Insight receives express contractual instructions from BHealthy to use its data for improving its algorithms. This would mean that BHealthy has given its consent and authorization for Natural Insight to process the data for that specific purpose, and that Natural Insight is acting in accordance with BHealthy’s instructions. In this case, Natural Insight would still be bound by the data processing contract and the GDPR, and would have to comply with the other obligations and requirements of a data processor, such as ensuring the security of the data, respecting the conditions for engaging another processor, assisting the data controller in ensuring compliance with the GDPR, and deleting or returning the data to the data controller after the end of the service.

The other options are not valid cases for data processor activity, as they do not involve the data controller’s instructions or consent. If Natural Insight uses BHealthy’s data for improving price point predictions only for BHealthy, it may still be processing the data for a different purpose than the one for which it was collected and shared, and without BHealthy’s knowledge or approval. If Natural Insight agrees to be fully liable for its use of BHealthy’s customer information in its product improvement activities, it may still be violating the data processing contract and the GDPR, as it is not acting on behalf of the data controller, but for its own benefit. If Natural Insight satisfies the transparency requirement by notifying BHealthy’s customers of its plans to use their information for its product improvement activities, it may still be infringing the data controller’s rights and obligations, as it is not the data controller’s role to inform the data subjects of the processing activities, and it may not have a lawful basis for processing the data for its own purpose.

According to the EDPB Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/6791, valid consent for the use of cookies must meet the following conditions:

• It must be freely given, which means that the data subject must have a genuine choice and the ability to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.

• It must be specific, which means that the data subject must give consent for each distinct purpose of the processing and for each type of cookie.

• It must be informed, which means that the data subject must receive clear and comprehensive information about the identity of the controller, the purposes of the processing, the types of cookies used, the duration of the cookies, and the possibility of withdrawing consent.

• It must be unambiguous, which means that the data subject must express their consent by a clear affirmative action, such as clicking on an “I agree” button or selecting specific settings in a cookie banner.

• It must be granular, which means that the data subject must be able to consent to different types of cookies separately, such as essential, functional, performance, or marketing cookies.

Therefore, a “Cookies Settings” button is not a necessary element to collect valid consent for the use of cookies, as long as the data subject can exercise their choice and preference through other means, such as a cookie banner with different options. However, a “Cookies Settings” button may be a good practice to enhance transparency and user control, as it allows the data subject to access and modify their consent settings at any time.

On the other hand, a “Reject All” cookies button is a necessary element to collect valid consent for the use of cookies, as it ensures that the data subject can freely refuse consent without detriment. A list of cookies that may be placed and information on the purpose of the cookies are also necessary elements to collect valid consent for the use of cookies, as they ensure that the data subject is informed and can give specific consent for each type of cookie.

An adequacy decision is a decision adopted by the European Commission, which determines that a third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within a third country, or an international organisation ensures an adequate level of protection of personal data 1 .  This means that the third country or organisation provides a level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union (EU), taking into account its domestic law and international commitments, as well as the respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, relevant legislation, and the existence and effective functioning of independent supervisory authorities 1 .  An adequacy decision is one of the transfer tools that can be used to transfer personal data to a third country or organisation without requiring any further authorisation 1 .  However, an adequacy decision is not permanent and can be amended, suspended or repealed by the Commission at any time, if the conditions are no longer met 1 .  Therefore, according to the recommendations of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the additional action that should be taken when a transfer to a third country is based upon an adequacy decision is to monitor changes in the law or practice of the third country that would lower the level of protection of personal data 2 .  This means that the data exporter should stay informed of any developments in the third country or organisation that could affect the validity of the adequacy decision, and take appropriate measures if the level of protection is no longer adequate 2 .  The data exporter should also cooperate with the competent supervisory authority and inform it of any issues that may affect the compliance with the adequacy decision 2 . Therefore, option D is the correct answer.  References:   Art. 45 GDPR – Transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision ,  Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data

According to the EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 (as updated and later built into Opinion 22/2024) , the first step for any international transfer is to “know your transfers.” This means mapping all transfers of personal data to third countries, including those made through processors or sub-processors.

The logic is:

Step 1 – Map transfers: Identify and document whether personal data leaves the EEA, and through which entities (controllers, processors, or sub-processors).

Step 2 – Verify transfer tool: Check if the transfer relies on adequacy, SCCs, BCRs, or derogations.

Step 3 – Assess third country law (TIA): Conduct a Transfer Impact Assessment only after the transfer mapping.

Step 4 – Supplementary measures: Adopt technical, contractual, or organisational safeguards if needed.

Therefore, the recommended first step in line with EDPB guidance is transfer mapping (Option C).

???? Reference: EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 on supplementary transfer measures, Step 1 “Know your transfers”; CIPP/E Textbook (3rd ed.), Chapter 12 “International Data Transfers”.

Louis has the right to object at any time to the use of his data and Bedrock must honor his request to cease use.

The GDPR states that “where personal data are processed for direct marketing purposes, the data subject shall have the right to object at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her for such marketing” and that “where the data subject objects to processing for direct marketing purposes, the personal data shall no longer be processed for such purposes.” 3

This right applies regardless of whether the data subject has previously consented to the use of his or her data, or whether the data are required for a legal claim or a legitimate interest.  The data subject must be informed of this right clearly and separately from any other information at the time of the first communication with him or her, and must be provided with an easy way to exercise it. 2

Therefore, Louis can object to the use of his data by Bedrock and Accidentable for direct marketing purposes, and they must stop processing his data for such purposes as soon as they receive his objection.  Louis can also withdraw his consent for any other processing of his data that he has previously agreed to, such as sharing his data with Bedrock’s affiliates. 4

According to the transparency principle, data controllers must provide clear and transparent information to data subjects about how their personal data is processed. This information must be easily accessible and easy to understand. Providing a hyperlink to the organization’s home page, in a hard copy application form, is not considered a fair processing practice in relation to the transparency principle, because it does not directly inform the data subject about the specific purposes and legal basis of the processing, the data protection rights and obligations, and the contact details of the data controller and the data protection officer. This information should be provided in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in a way that is appropriate to the means of communication. Providing a hyperlink to the organization’s home page, in a hard copy application form, does not meet these criteria and may also be inaccessible to some data subjects who do not have internet access or are not familiar with the use of hyperlinks.  Therefore, this option is not a fair processing practice in relation to the transparency principle.  References:   1 2 3 4 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/guidance-for-the-use-of-personal-data-in-political-campaigning-1/lawful-fair-and-transparent- processing/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/guidance-for-the-use-of-personal-data-in-political-campaigning-1/lawful-fair-and-transparent-processing/