On September 17, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted Guidelines 04/2026 on the application of administrative fines in relation to other corrective powers under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) for public consultation (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines are intended to harmonize how EU supervisory authorities determine whether an administrative fine should be imposed in addition to, or instead of, other corrective measures listed at Article 58(2) of the GDPR.
The Five-Step Approach
The Guidelines introduce a five-step methodology for supervisory authorities to use when determining whether to impose a fine, which includes assessing or considering the following:
- Step 1: whether the infringement is one for which a fine may be imposed, either pursuant to the GDPR or applicable national law.
- Step 2: whether the party under investigation can be fined, particularly whether they can be liable.
- Step 3: whether the infringement was committed intentionally or negligently.
- Step 4: whether the factors in Article 83(2) of the GDPR suggest that the infringement is minor.
- Step 5: whether imposing a fine would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive in the specific case.
According to the EDPB, the first three steps address the legal preconditions for imposing a fine, while the final two steps focus on whether a fine should in fact be imposed in light of the other corrective powers available under the GDPR.
Guidance on Step 4 is particularly relevant in practice because it addresses when an infringement may be treated as minor. The general rule is that an administrative fine should not be imposed and a reprimand may be issued instead, although supervisory authorities retain discretion to impose a fine where appropriate in light of the circumstances of the individual case. Conversely, if the infringement is not considered minor, there is a strong presumption that an administrative fine should be imposed.
In assessing whether an infringement is minor, supervisory authorities must consider its nature, gravity and duration. The Guidelines indicate that this assessment should be highly context-specific, and take into consideration the interest protected by the infringed rule, the scope and purpose of the processing, the number of affected data subjects and the level of damage. In particular, steps taken to mitigate the impact on affected individuals may be relevant in determining whether the infringement is considered minor and whether a fine is warranted. In that regard, the EDPB places particular weight on the timeliness and effectiveness of the measures taken; measures implemented spontaneously before the organization becomes aware of an investigation are more likely to be considered mitigating than measures taken later.
The Guidelines also indicate that measures reflecting ordinary GDPR compliance obligations will not easily be treated as mitigating, and may be given weight only in exceptional circumstances where the organization has gone beyond what the GDPR normally requires. In this regard, the EDPB notes that, because cooperation with a supervisory authority is already required under the GDPR, only cooperation that goes beyond that obligation and materially limits harm may be treated as mitigating.
Relationship with Other Corrective Powers
The Guidelines clarify how fines relate to the other corrective powers available under the GDPR. According to the EDPB, a warning is preventive in nature and applies where processing operations are likely to infringe the GDPR but no infringement has yet occurred, so a fine cannot be imposed for the same conduct in that situation. By contrast, as a rule, a fine may be imposed in addition to a limitation or ban on processing where an infringement has been established. However, where the limitation or ban relates to future processing for which an infringement has not yet been established, a fine cannot be imposed for that same conduct.
The Guidelines will be subject to public consultation until November 13, 2026.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron P. Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- Alabama
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Attorney General
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- California Privacy Protection Agency
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chatbot
- Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Breach
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Minimization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Protection Officer
- Data Security
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- Digital Services Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- European Union
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- FTC
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Genetic Data
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Privacy
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Large Language Model
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Opt-Out
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy
- Privacy and Information Security Law
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Purpose Limitation
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk Assessment
- Risk-Based Approach
- ROSCA
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Salesforce
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- SECURE Data Act
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Surveillance Pricing
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code