In-depth analysis of one of Europe's largest GDPR fines for behavioral advertising violations and its critical implications for DPDPA compliance.Behavioral Tracking • Consent Management • Legal Basis
Understanding the regulatory enforcement action and its broader implications for data protection compliance
Total Fine Amount
Regulatory Authority
Subject Company
Key regulatory findings and their implications for organizational privacy compliance
LinkedIn claimed legitimate interest for behavioral tracking without proper balancing test
Organizations must conduct thorough legitimate interest assessments and cannot rely on vague business interests
Processing personal data for advertising without explicit user consent
Behavioral advertising requires explicit, freely given consent that can be easily withdrawn
Users were not adequately informed about data processing for advertising purposes
Privacy notices must clearly explain all data uses, especially for advertising and profiling
Excessive data collection beyond what was necessary for stated purposes
Data collection must be limited to what is necessary and proportionate to the purpose
How LinkedIn's violations translate to DPDPA compliance requirements for Indian organizations
Free, specific, informed, and unambiguous consent
Implement granular consent mechanisms for advertising and tracking purposes
Data used only for specified, explicit purposes
Clearly define and limit data processing purposes, especially for advertising
Collect only necessary and relevant data
Regular data audits to ensure collection is proportionate to business needs
Clear information about data processing
Comprehensive privacy notices explaining all data uses and user rights
Comprehensive measures to prevent similar violations and ensure robust behavioral advertising compliance
Essential lessons for building compliant behavioral advertising and data processing programs