Belgian DPA to Take Down Websites Infringing GDPR
Time 3 Minute Read

On November 26, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”) signed a cooperation agreement with DNS Belgium, the organization managing the “.be” country code top-level domain name. The purpose of the cooperation agreement is to allow DNS Belgium to suspend “.be” websites that are linked to infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

The cooperation agreement establishes a two-tier cooperation system:

  • Cooperation with investigations of the Belgian DPA: DNS Belgium must provide the Belgian DPA’s Investigation Service with the information it requires for its investigations.
  • “Notice and Action” Procedure: If the Belgian DPA’s Investigation Service or Litigation Chamber considers a data processing activity conducted via a website with a “.be” domain name to infringe one of the data protection principles established under the GDPR, and the responsible data controller or data processor does not comply with the DPA’s order to suspend, limit, freeze (temporarily) or end the data processing activity, the Investigation Service or the Litigation Chamber is authorized to send a “Notice and Action” notification to DNS Belgium. Upon receipt of the “Notice and Action” notification, DNS Belgium will inform the website owner about the infringement and re-direct the relevant domain name to a warning page of the Belgian DPA. If, at the expiration of a 14-day period, the website owner indicates that it has taken the appropriate remediation measures to stop the infringement and the Belgian DPA does not contest it, the relevant domain name will be restored. During the 14-day period, website owners can make a request to stop or suspend the Notice and Action procedure, in which case the domain name may be restored until a decision regarding the procedure has been taken. If the infringement is not remediated during the 14-day period, the website will continue to be re-directed to the Belgian DPA’s warning page for a period of six months, after which the website will be cancelled and placed in quarantine for 40 days before becoming available for registration again. The Inspector General or the Director of the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian DPA can, at their discretion, provide extra time to the website owner to comply with the relevant data protection requirements.

The “Notice and Action” procedure is only available for infringements that cause very serious harm and are committed by natural or legal persons who deliberately infringe the law or who continue data processing activity despite a prior order by the Investigation Service or the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian DPA to suspend, limit, freeze (temporarily) or end the processing activity.

Read the cooperation agreement in French or in Dutch.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 2 Minute Read

On February 23, 2026, a Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery was published by 61 data protection authorities. The Joint Statement addresses concerns regarding AI systems capable of generating realistic images and videos depicting identifiable individuals without their knowledge or consent.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page