Step Into The Future of Cybersecurity — Save your spot at the Human Layer Security Summit for free.

Request a Demo of Tessian Today.
Automatically stop data breaches and security threats caused by employees on email. Powered by machine learning, Tessian detects anomalies in real-time, integrating seamlessly with your email environment within minutes and starting protection in a day. Provides you with unparalleled visibility into human security risks to remediate threats and ensure compliance.

20 Biggest GDPR Fines of 2019, 2020, and 2021 (So Far)

  • 06 September 2021

Tessian’s mission is to secure the human layer by empowering people to do their best work, without security getting in their way.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is among the world’s toughest data protection laws. 

Under the GDPR, the EU’s data protection authorities can impose fines of up to up to €20 million (roughly $20,372,000), or 4 percent of worldwide turnover for the preceding financial year—whichever is higher.

Since the GDPR took effect in May 2018, we’ve seen over 800 fines issued across the European Economic Area (EEA) and the U.K.

Enforcement started off somewhat slow. But between July 18, 2020, and July 18, 2021, there was a significant increase in the size and quantity of fines, with total penalties surging by around 113.5%.

And that was before the record-breaking fine against Amazon—announced by the company in its July 30 earnings report—which dwarfed the cumulative total of all GDPR fines up until that date.

Let’s take a look at the biggest GDPR fines of 2019, 2020, 2021, explore what caused them, and consider how you can avoid being fined for similar violations.

Looking for information about achieving and maintaining compliance? We explore solutions for reducing email risk (the #1 threat vector according to security leaders) on this page.

The biggest GDPR fines of 2019, 2020, and 2021 (so far)

1. Amazon — €746 million ($877 million)

Amazon’s gigantic GDPR fine, announced in the company’s July 2021 earnings report, is nearly 15 times bigger than the previous record.

The full reasons behind the fine haven’t yet been confirmed, but we know the cause has to do with cookie consent.

And this isn’t the first time Amazon has been punished due to the way it collects and shares personal data via cookies. In late 2020, France fined Amazon €35 million after the tech giant allegedly failed to get cookie consent on its website.

How the fine could have been avoided: It’s tempting to force users to “agree” to cookies—or make opting out of cookies difficult—to collect as much personal data as possible.

But regulators have shown some serious appetite for enforcing the EU’s cookie rules recently.

If Amazon had obtained “freely given”, informed, and unambiguous opt-in consent before setting cookies on its users’ devices, the company probably could have avoided this huge GDPR fine.

2. Google – €50 million ($56.6 million) 

Google’s fine, levied in 2019 and finalized after an unsuccessful appeal in March 2020, was the largest on record until August 2021. 

The case related to how Google provided privacy notice to its users—and how the company requested their consent for personalized advertising and other types of data processing.

How the fine could have been avoided: Google should have provided more information to users in consent policies and granted them more control over how their personal data is processed.

3. H&M — €35 million ($41 million)

On October 5, 2020 the Data Protection Authority of Hamburg, Germany, fined clothing retailer H&M €35,258,707.95 — the second-largest GDPR fine ever imposed at the time.

H&M’s GDPR violations involved the “monitoring of several hundred employees.” After employees took vacation or sick leave, they were required to attend a return-to-work meeting. Some of these meetings were recorded and accessible to over 50 H&M managers.

Senior H&M staff gained ”a broad knowledge of their employees’ private lives… ranging from rather harmless details to family issues and religious beliefs.” This “detailed profile” was used to help evaluate employees’ performance and make decisions about their employment.

How the fine could have been avoided: H&M appears to have violated the GDPR’s principle of data minimization — don’t process personal information, particularly sensitive data about people’s health and beliefs, unless you need to for a specific purpose.

H&M should also have placed strict access controls on the data, and the company should not have used this data to make decisions about people’s employment.

4. TIM – €27.8 million ($31.5 million)

On January 15, 2020, Italian telecommunications operator TIM (or Telecom Italia) was stung with a €27.8 million GDPR fine from Garante, the Italian Data Protection Authority, for a series of infractions and violations that have accumulated over the last several years. 

TIM’s infractions include a variety of unlawful actions, most of which stem from an overly aggressive marketing strategy. Millions of individuals were bombarded with promotional calls and unsolicited communications, some of whom were on non-contact and exclusion lists.  

How the fine could have been avoided: TIM should have managed lists of data subjects more carefully and created specific opt-ins for different marketing activities.

5. British Airways – €22 million ($26 million)

In October, the ICO hit British Airways with a $26 million fine for a breach that took place in 2018. This is considerably less than the $238 million fine that the ICO originally said it intended to issue back in 2019. 

 So, what happened back in 2018? British Airway’s systems were compromised. The breach affected 400,000 customers and hackers got their hands on log-in details, payment card information, and travelers’ names and addresses.  

How the fine could have been avoided: According to the ICO, the attack was preventable, but BA didn’t have sufficient security measures in place to protect their systems, networks, and data. In fact, it seems BA didn’t even have basics like multi-factor authentication in place at the time of the breach. 

Going forward, the airline should take a security-first approach, invest in security solutions, and ensure they have strict data privacy policies and procedures in place.

6. Marriott – €20.4 million ($23.8 million)

While this is an eye-watering fine, it’s actually significantly lower than the $123 million fine the ICO originally said they’d levy.

So, what happened? 

383 million guest records (30 million EU residents) were exposed after the hotel chain’s guest reservation database was compromised. Personal data like guests’ names, addresses, passport numbers, and payment card information was exposed. 

Note: The hack originated in Starwood Group’s reservation system in 2014. While Marriott acquired Starwood in 2016, the hack wasn’t detected until September 2018.

How the fine could have been avoided: The ICO found that Marriott failed to perform adequate due diligence after acquiring Starwood. They should have done more to safeguard their systemswith a stronger data loss prevention (DLP) strategy and utilized de-identification methods. 

7. Wind — €17 million ($20 million)

On July 13, Italian Data Protection Authority imposed a fine of €16,729,600 on telecoms company Wind due to its unlawful direct marketing activities.

The enforcement action started after Italy’s regulator received complaints about Wind Tre’s marketing communications. Wind reportedly spammed Italians with ads — without their consent — and provided incorrect contact details, leaving consumers unable to unsubscribe.

The regulator also found that Wind’s mobile apps forced users to agree to direct marketing and location tracking and that its business partners had undertaken illegal data-collection activities. 

How the fine could have been avoided: Wind should have established a valid lawful basis before using people’s contact details for direct marketing purposes. This probably would have meant getting consumers’ consent — unless it could  demonstrate that sending marketing materials was in its “legitimate interests.”

For whatever reason you send direct marketing, you must ensure that consumers have an easy way to unsubscribe. And you must always ensure that your company’s Privacy Policy is accurate and up-to-date.

8. Vodafone Italia — €12.3 million ($14.5 million)

Vodafone Italia’s November 2020 fine was issued in relation to a vast range of alleged GDPR violations, including provisions within Articles 5, 6, 7, 16, 21, 25, 32, and 33.

So what did Vodafone do that resulted in so many GDPR violations? 

The company’s data processing issues included failing to properly secure customer data, sharing personal data with third-party call centers, and processing without a legal basis—all brought to light after complaints about the company’s telemarketing campaign.

How the fine could have been avoided: Vodafone’s marketing operations may have triggered the Italian DPA’s investigation, but the company’s data management and security were the fundamental issues here.

Vodafone might have avoided this large fine by conducting regular audits of its data and properly documenting all relationships with third-party data processors.

9. Notebooksbilliger.de — €10.4 million ($12.5 million)

German electronics retailer notebooksbilliger.de (NBB) received this significant GDPR fine on January 8, 2021. The penalty relates to how NBB used CCTV cameras to monitor its employees and customers.

The CCTV system ran for two years, and NBB reportedly kept recordings for up to 60 days. NBB said it needed to record its staff and customers to prevent theft. The Lower Saxony DPA said the monitoring was an intrusion on its employees’ and customers’ privacy.

How the fine could have been avoided: The NBB’s fine reflects strict attitudes towards CCTV monitoring in parts of Germany. The regulator said NBB’s CCTV program was not limited to a specific person or period.

Using CCTV isn’t prohibited under the GDPR, but you must ensure it is a legitimate and proportionate response to a specific problem. The UK’s ICO has some guidance on using CCTV in a GDPR-compliant way.

10. Eni — €8.5 million ($10 million)

Eni Gas e Luce (Eni) is an Italian gas and oil company that was found to have made marketing phone calls without a proper legal basis.

While telemarketing is covered by the ePrivacy Directive, this is another example of how any processing of personal data without a proper legal basis can lead to a GDPR fine.

How the fine could have been avoided: Eni should have ensured it had a proper legal basis for telemarketing before calling any of its customers or leads. In this case, the Italian DPA said that the proper lawful basis would have been consent.

11. Vodafone Spain — €8.15 million ($9.72 million)

Vodafone’s €8.15 million fine, issued by the Spanish DPA (the AEPD) on March 11, 2021, is actually made up of four fines for violating the GDPR and other Spanish laws covering telecommunications and cookies.

The Vodafone fine stands as Spain’s biggest yet—in a year that has seen the AEPD issue several substantial GDPR penalties.

The fine results from 191 separate complaints regarding Vodafone’s marketing activity. Vodafone was alleged not to have taken sufficient organizational measures to ensure it was processing people’s personal data lawfully.

How the fine could have been avoided: Vodafone’s complex series of legal violations all appear to have one thing in common: a lack of organization and control over personal data used for marketing purposes.

Whenever you outsource any processing activity to a third party—for example, a marketing agency—you must ensure you have a clear legal basis for doing so. 

Keep clear records, maintain data processing agreements with contractors, and regularly audit your processing activities to ensure they are lawful.

12. Google – €7 million ($8.3 million)

From a GDPR enforcement perspective, 2020 was not a good year for Google. 

Along with the company losing its appeal against French DPA in January, March saw the Swedish Data Protection Authority of Sweden (SDPA) fining Google for neglecting to remove a pair of search result listings under Europe’s GDPR “right to be forgotten” rules. 

How the fine could have been avoided: Google should have fulfilled the rights of data subjects, primarily their right to be forgotten. This is also known as the right to erasure. How? By “ensuring a process was in place to respond to requests for erasure without undue delay and within one month of receipt.” 

You can find more information about how to comply with requests for erasure from the ICO here

13. Caixabank — €6 million ($7.2 million)

This fine against financial services company Caixabank is the largest fine ever issued by the Spanish DPA (the AEPD). 

The AEPD finalized Caixabank’s penalty on January 13, 2021, breaking Spain’s previous record GDPR fine, against BBVA — issued just one month earlier. This suggests a significant toughening of approach from the Spanish DPA.

The first issue, which accounts for €4 million of the total fine, related to how Caixabank established a “legal basis” for using consumers’ personal data under Article 6. Second, Caixabank was fined €2 million for violating the GDPR’s transparency requirements at Articles 13 and 14. 

How the fine could have been avoided: The AEPD said Caixabank relied on the legal basis of “legitimate interests” without proper justification. Before you rely on “legitimate interests,” you must conduct and document a “legitimate interests assessment.” 

The company also failed to obtain consumers’ consent in a GDPR-compliant way. If you’re relying on “consent,” make sure it meets the GDPR’s strict “opt in” standards.

The AEPD criticized Caixabank’s privacy policy as providing vague and inconsistent information about its data processing practices. Make sure you use clear language in your privacy notices and keep them consistent across websites and platforms.

14. BBVA (bank) — €5 million ($6 million)

This fine against financial services giant BBVA (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria) dates from December 11, 2020. 

The BBVA’s penalty is the second biggest that the Spanish DPA (the AEPD) has ever imposed, and it shares many similarities with the AEPD’s largest-ever penalty, against Caixabank, issued the following month.

Taken together with the record fine against Caixabank, it’s tempting to conclude that the Spanish DPA has its eye on the GDPR compliance of financial institutions.

How the fine could have been avoided: The AEPD fined BBVA €3 million for sending SMS messages without obtaining consumers’ consent. In most circumstances, you must ensure you have GDPR-valid consent for sending direct marketing messages.

The remaining €2 million of the penalty related to BBVA’s privacy policy, which failed to properly explain how the bank collected and use its customers’ personal data. Make sure you include all the necessary information under Articles 13 and 14 in your privacy policy.

15. Fastweb — €4.5 million ($5.5 million)

Italy’s DPA (the Garante) fined telecoms company Fastweb €4.5 million on April 2 2021 for engaging in unsolicited telephone marketing without consent.

In particular, the Garanta noted that Fastweb was using “fraudulent” telephone numbers that the company had not registered with Italy’s Register of Communication Operators.

How the fine could have been avoided: Fastweb’s fine derives from telemarketing rules that are set out in Italy’s implementation of the ePrivacy Directive, rather than the GDPR. However, the company still appears to have violated the GDPR by failing to obtain valid consent.

It’s important to remember this interplay between the EU’s main privacy laws. The ePrivacy Directive requires you to obtain consent for certain activities, but the GDPR sets the standard of consent—and the standard is very high.

16. Eni Gas e Luce — €3 million ($3.6 million)

This fine is one of two imposed on the Italian gas and oil company Eni in December 2019. This is a complicated case involving the creation of new customer accounts—but it boils down to the failure of Eni to obey the GDPR’s principle of accuracy.

How the fine could have been avoided: Data protection is about more than just privacy—it also covers issues like records management. Eni should have ensured its customer records were kept accurate and up-to-date.

17. Capio St. Göran AB — €2.9 million ($3.4 million)

Capio St. Goran is a Swedish healthcare provider that received a GDPR fine following an audit of one of its hospitals by the Swedish DPA.

The audit revealed that the company had failed to carry out appropriate risk assessments and implement effective access controls. As a result, too many employees had access to sensitive personal data.

How the fine could have been avoided: Conducting a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is mandatory under the GDPR for controllers undertaking certain risky activities or handling large-scale sensitive data.

Eni should have conducted such an assessment to determine which staff required access to medical records. Access to sensitive personal data should be restricted to those who strictly require it.

18. Iren Mercato — €2.85 million ($3.4 million)

In June 2021, the Italian DPA fined energy company Iren Mercato for carrying out a telephone marketing campaign without obtaining proper consent. The phone calls were conducted by a third party marketing company acting as a data processor.

How the fine could have been avoided: Many of the fines on our list relate to telemarketing and the failure to obtain GDPR-valid consent.

Remember that even when using third-party services to conduct marketing campaigns, you could still be directly liable under the GDPR if you fail to establish a valid legal basis for processing personal data.

19. Foodinho — €2.6 million ($3 million)

Groceries delivery service Foodinho received this substantial fine in June 2021, after the Italian DPA found the company had failed to obey the GDPR’s rules on “automated processing,” in this case the use of an algorithm to determine employees’ wages and workflow.

The company was also found to have violated the GDPR’s principle of “lawfulness, fairness, and transparency” by failing to provide employees with adequate information.

How the fine could have been avoided: Foodinho’s fine mainly relates to a relatively niche area of GDPR compliance—”solely automated processing with legal or similarly significant effects.” 

In short, if you’re making purely AI-driven decisions about people that could impact on their finances, employment, or access to services, you must ensure you provide a human review of such decisions.

20. National Revenue Agency (Bulgaria) — €2.6 million ($3 million)

This August 2019 fine against Bulgaria’s National Revenue Agency was issued after the organization suffered a data breach affecting 5 million people.

The breached data included people’s names, contact details, and tax information. The Bulgarian DPA found that the agency failed to take effective technical and organizational measures to protect the personal data under its control.

How the fine could have been avoided: The Bulgarian National Revenue should have conducted a thorough risk assessment of its processing operations and taken effective steps to safeguard personal data.

While it’s not clear what caused this data breach, it’s worth noting that the FBI’s Internet Crime Control Center cites email as the number one threat vector in cybercrime. 

By securing your company’s email systems, you’re cutting off one of your major vulnerabilities and significantly reducing the likelihood of a data breach.

What else can organizations be fined for under GDPR? 

While the biggest fines involve marketing activities, failure to remove personal data when requested by EU citizens, and unlawfully requiring employees to have their biometric data recorded, there are a number of ways in which a breach can occur. 

In fact, so far this year, misdirected emails have been the primary cause of data loss reported to the ICO. But, how do you prevent an accident? By focusing on people rather than systems and networks.

How does Tessian help organizations stay GDPR compliant?

“Tessian exceeded the expectations of our GDPR team. You simply cannot beat seeing for yourself what the product is capable of against your own organization’s data.”
Mark Elias IT Infrastructure Manager at Coastal Housing

Powered by machine learning, Tessian’s Human Layer Security technology understands human behavior and relationships, enabling it to automatically detect and prevent anomalous and dangerous activity, including misdirected emails. Tessian also detects and prevents spear phishing attacks and data exfiltration attempts on email

Importantly, though, Tessian doesn’t just prevent breaches. Tessian’s key features – which are both proactive and reactive – align with the GDPR requirement “to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures together with a process for regularly testing, assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of those measures to ensure the security of processing” (Article 32).

To learn more about how Tessian helps with GDPR compliance, you can check out this page, our customer stories or book a demo