Breadcrumb

  • Home
  • Irish data watchdog has real teeth as TikTok is fined 530 million euros

Search form

Main navigation

  • Home

HOME | ALL NEWS

Irish data watchdog has real teeth as TikTok is fined 530 million euros

Saturday, 3 May, 2025 - 11:11

The Irish Data Protection Commission has announced its final decision following an inquiry into TikTok Technology Limited and the transfer of personal information to China. In addition, the Inquiry examined whether the provision of information to users in relation to such transfers met TikTok’s transparency requirements as required by the GDPR.

The Commission found that TikTok infringed the GDPR regarding its transfers of EEA User Data to China and its transparency requirements. The decision includes administrative fines totalling €530 million and an order requiring TikTok to bring its processing into compliance within 6 months. The decision also includes an order suspending TikTok’s transfers to China if processing is not brought into compliance within this timeframe.

Note: these are administrative fines they are not fines arising from criminal conduct.

Erroneous information submitted to Inquiry

Throughout the Inquiry, TikTok informed the DPC that it did not store EEA User Data on servers located in China. However, in April 2025, TikTok informed the DPC of an issue that it had discovered in February 2025 where limited EEA User Data had in fact been stored on servers in China, contrary to TikTok’s evidence to the Inquiry. TikTok informed the DPC that this discovery meant that TikTok had provided inaccurate information to the Inquiry.

The Commission says it's not over: "Whilst TikTok has informed the DPC that the data has now been deleted, we are considering what further regulatory action may be warranted, in consultation with our peer EU Data Protection Authorities.”

TikTok Ireland was required to assess if Chinese law guaranteed an essentially equivalent level of protection to EU law. The Decision finds that TikTok’s transfers to China infringed Article 46(1) GDPR because it failed to verify, guarantee and demonstrate that the supplementary measures and the Standard Contractual Clauses were effective to ensure that the personal data of EEA users transferred via remote access were afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU. While TikTok maintains that transfers via remote access are not subject to the laws and practices in question, TikTok’s own assessment of Chinese law provided to the DPC during the Inquiry set out how aspects of the Chinese legal framework preclude a finding of essential equivalence to EU law. The DPC had regard to this assessment and to the Chinese laws identified by TikTok which materially diverge from EU standards such as the Anti-Terrorism Law, the Counter-Espionage Law, the Cybersecurity Law and the National Intelligence Law.  In particular, the DPC found that TikTok’s failure to adequately assess the level of protection provided by Chinese law and practices to the personal data of EEA users the subject of transfers, which said personal data is processed in China, not only directly impacted TikTok’s ability to select appropriate safeguards and supplementary measures, but also prevented TikTok from verifying and guaranteeing an essentially equivalent level of protection.

The Commission’s Findings regarding Transparency

Article 13(1)(f) GDPR requires data controllers to provide data subjects with information on that controller’s transfers of personal data to a third country. The DPC considered TikTok’s October 2021 EEA Privacy Policy and found that this policy was inadequate in two key respects for the purposes of Article 13(1)(f) GDPR.

First, TikTok’s 2021 Privacy Policy did not name the third countries, including China, to which personal data was transferred. Second, the 2021 Privacy Policy did not explain the nature of the processing operations that constitute the transfer. Specifically, the 2021 Privacy Policy failed to specify that the processing included remote access to personal data stored in Singapore and the United States by personnel based in China. The policy was updated in 2022 and did meet the Commission's requirements in this regard.

 

The Commission imposed administrative fines totalling €530 million in this Decision, consisting of a fine of €45 million for its infringement of Article 13(1)(f) GDPR, and a fine of €485 million for its infringement of Article 46(1) GDPR.

To celebrate the publication of Volume 2, Volume 1 is available, for a short time, in paperback with a 35% discount.

Amazon:
Vol 1 paperback: https://amzn.to/3YajAO4 Vol 1 hardback: https://amzn.to/3Gze1m4

Vol 2 paperback: https://amzn.to/3Y9GTHU Vol 2 hardback: https://amzn.to/4ixhyin

Personalised ebooks: www.vortexcentrum.com

Footer menu

  • Weekly Digest (opens in new tab)
  • Images attribution (opens in new tab)
  • Corporate, privacy, intellectual property and access (opens in new tab)
  • Advertising and Recommendations (opens in new tab)
  • Promote your business (opens in new tab)
  • Enquiries (opens in new tab)


 

BOT AND SCRAPER ACCESS DENIED

 


 

Built with Drupal     |     Hosted by Siteground     |     Template by Alaa Haddad     

Design by Vortex Centrum Limited    |     Some services provided by Google Workspace    

Posters and other merch by ProjectLXX   |   Privacy and security services by Surfshark and Firetrust. 


Nothing in this website is intended to be or shall be taken as legal advice. 

You should always seek advice from a practitioner experienced in this area. 


Everything on this website is copyright Nigel Morris-Cotterill and/or Vortex Centrum Limited for itself or one of its business units. No downloading, printing or other means of replicating or reusing is permitted. In particular, all bot access is denied and all scraping of content will result in the legal action set forth in the terms and conditions in this site. For legal, cookies and privacy see vortexcentrum.com.

Copyright 1999- © 2026 Vortex Centrum Limited - All rights reserved. Bot access denied.