Your cookie preferences

EDPB guidance · Art. 7 GDPR

We use technical cookies essential for the platform to work (login, security, sessions). We would also like to use analytics cookies to understand how to improve it.

You can accept all, reject all, or choose which categories to switch on.Your consent is valid for 6 months and you can withdraw it at any time from the footer.

You will find everything in our privacy notice.

All news
EDPB / EDPS August 10, 2026 6 min

In 2026 every European authority is looking at the same thing: privacy notices

The EDPB's annual coordinated action for 2026 targets transparency and the information duties of Articles 12, 13 and 14. This is not a national initiative: it runs simultaneously across Europe

TL;DR for the DPO

The privacy notice is the document everyone has and almost nobody re-reads. In 2026 it is the document every European authority will be looking at, at the same time. If you carry a client portfolio, this is the year to re-read all of them - and not in September.

How the coordinated action works

Since 2022 the EDPB has picked one topic a year and national authorities check it in parallel: some send questionnaires, some open formal inspections, some start proceedings. The findings feed a European report that becomes the interpretive reference for the years that follow. Previous editions covered the role of the DPO, the right of access and erasure. 2026 is transparency.

The practical consequence is that you do not need to be in the spotlight to end up in the sample: authorities pick controllers of every size, and for many the first news arrives as a questionnaire with a deadline.

What they actually look at

Article 12 does not require the notice to exist: it requires it to be concise, transparent, intelligible, easily accessible and in clear and plain language. That is five adjectives, and each one is a possible finding. A complete but unreadable notice breaches Article 12 just as an incomplete one breaches Article 13.

Article 14 is the real weak spot

Where data does not come from the data subject but from another source - a purchased list, a customer base inherited through an acquisition, a supplier passing records on - the notice is still due, must be given within a month, and must state WHERE the data came from. In practice it is the most neglected obligation of all, because nobody has a process that triggers when data enters through an indirect channel.

The questions to ask about each client

  • Is the notice current for what the client does TODAY, or does it describe the company of three years ago?
  • Do the purposes and legal bases match those written in the Article 30 records? The two diverge more often than people think, and authorities compare them.
  • Where data arrives from third parties, is there an Article 14 notice, and does anyone actually send it within the month?
  • Are retention periods stated with a criterion, or with 'for as long as necessary', which informs nobody?
  • Is the notice reachable in under two clicks from the point where data is collected?

What to do now, in practice

1) Inventory every client's notice with the date of its last review: anything older than two years is the backlog to clear first. 2) For each client, cross-check the purposes in the notice against the Article 30 records and note the divergences - it is the first check an authority runs, because it costs nothing. 3) Hunt for indirect data flows: lists, partners, acquisitions, suppliers passing records. Each one requires an Article 14 notice stating the source. 4) Put the notice review in this year's plan with a date, not as an ongoing activity: ongoing activities never happen.

Official source:Czech Data Protection Authority - Inspection Plan for 2026Official source:European Data Protection Board - Coordinated Enforcement Framework

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.

Start free

Related articles

EDPB / EDPS
EDPBfirst statement on smart glasses

Smart glasses: the EDPB takes a position — users can be controllers, and people being filmed must be able to tell

They look like ordinary glasses, but they have a camera, a microphone and a connection. The EDPB publishes its first statement on smart glasses: when the user becomes a controller, why manufacturers and app providers cannot pass their obligations on to users, and what making a recording visible means in practice.

Oct 13, 2026New 5 min
EDPB / EDPS
25the authorities looking at your privacy notice this year, not at your registers

The year the authorities read the privacy notice: CEF 2026 on transparency

On 19 March 2026 the EDPB launched this year's coordinated enforcement action on the transparency and information obligations of Articles 12, 13 and 14 GDPR. Twenty-five authorities are taking part, each free to choose its method: inspections, questionnaires sent to controllers, reading the notices published on websites, sector reviews. National results will be aggregated in the second half of 2026 and the EDPB will publish a summary report with follow-up recommendations. For anyone running compliance the point is that this year the check starts from a text that is already public.

Oct 09, 2026New 7 min
EDPB / EDPS
13 novlast day to send comments to the consultation

When a fine, and when not: the EDPB writes down the part that was missing

On 21 September 2026 the European Data Protection Board adopted Guidelines 04/2026 on the exercise of the power to fine in relation to the other corrective powers, open to public consultation until 13 November 2026. They replace the old Article 29 Working Party guidelines and complete the 2022 ones on calculating the amount. The difference is substantive: those said how much, these say whether. And at the fourth step there is a presumption that shifts the burden of the defence.

Sep 21, 2026New 6 min