Organizations that process personal data across India and Europe may find familiar principles in both the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). Both frameworks address how organizations collect, use, secure, and manage personal data, and both give individuals rights over their information.
But the similarities should not be mistaken for equivalence.
The two laws differ in the data they cover, the legal grounds available for processing, children’s data requirements, individual rights, breach reporting, governance, cross-border transfers, and several other operational areas. An organization with a mature GDPR program may therefore have a useful starting point for DPDP compliance, but it still needs to identify and address India-specific requirements.
For privacy, legal, IT, and security teams, the practical task is to determine which existing GDPR controls can be reused and which processes need a separate DPDP legal and operational mapping.
India’s DPDP Rules, 2025 were notified in November 2025, with the DPDP Act and Rules being brought into force in phases. As of November 2026, several substantive requirements discussed in this guide have not yet commenced. The comparisons below therefore describe both requirements already in effect and requirements organizations should prepare for as the remaining provisions take effect.
Note: This blog post is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The DPDP Act and Rules have phased commencement dates. References to DPDP requirements in this guide should be read subject to the commencement of the relevant provisions.
What is the GDPR?
The GDPR is a European Union (EU) law that requires organizations to protect personal data and uphold the privacy rights of individuals in the EU. Replacing the 1995 Data Protection Directive, it sets out data protection principles that organizations must follow and privacy rights that they must enable individuals to exercise.
The GDPR took effect on May 25, 2018. It applies to organizations established within the EU and the broader European Economic Area (EEA) that process personal data. In specified circumstances, it also applies to organizations outside the EU that offer goods or services to people in the EU or monitor their behavior.
Under the GDPR, a data subject is an identified or identifiable natural person to whom personal data relates, i.e., an individual from whom or about whom data is collected. An organization that determines the purposes and means of personal data processing is generally the data controller, while an organization processing personal data on the controller’s behalf is a data processor.
What is the DPDP Act?
The DPDP Act, 2023 is India’s first comprehensive national law governing the processing and protection of digital personal data. It provides for such processing in a manner that recognizes both an individual’s right to protect their personal data and the need to process it for lawful purposes.
It applies to digital personal data processed within India, including personal data originally collected in non-digital form and subsequently digitized. It can also apply to processing outside India when that processing relates to offering goods or services to individuals in India.
The DPDP Act uses terminology that differs from GDPR:
- An individual to whom personal data relates is a Data Principal.
- An organization determining the purpose and means of personal data processing is a Data Fiduciary.
- An entity processing personal data on behalf of a Data Fiduciary is a Data Processor.
- Certain Data Fiduciaries may be designated as Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) and become subject to additional requirements.
- A Consent Manager is a person registered with the Data Protection Board of India who enables Data Principals to give, manage, review, and withdraw consent for personal data processing.
The DPDP Act establishes the legal framework for protecting digital personal data in India. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 set out detailed requirements and procedures for implementing the Act. This includes requirements related to notices, consent management, security safeguards, personal data breach reporting, and children’s data.
GDPR vs DPDP Act: At a glance
| Aspect | GDPR | DPDP Act |
|---|---|---|
| Primary jurisdiction | European Union/EEA | India |
| Data covered | Personal data, including personal data in certain structured non-digital filing systems | Digital personal data, including personal data collected in non-digital form and digitized subsequently |
| Individual | Data Subject | Data Principal |
| Organization determining processing | Controller | Data Fiduciary |
| Processor | Processor | Data Processor |
| Processing grounds | Six lawful bases | Consent or certain legitimate uses |
| Sensitive data | Defines special categories of personal data | No equivalent general special category classification |
| Children’s data | Special protections; for consent to certain information society services, the relevant age can vary from 13 to 16 by Member State | A child generally means an individual under 18 |
| Consent Manager | No equivalent statutory role | Specific statutory role |
| SDF | No direct equivalent category | Additional category with enhanced obligations |
| Cross-border transfers | Adequacy decisions, Standard Contractual Clauses, Binding Corporate Rules, and other permitted mechanisms | Central Government may restrict transfers to specified countries or territories |
| Breach reporting | Risk-based notification thresholds apply | Notification framework does not use the same GDPR risk thresholds |
| Penalties | Includes turnover-based maximum administrative fines | Monetary penalties tied to specified contraventions |
The two frameworks share several data protection concepts, so existing GDPR practices can provide a useful foundation. However, organizations subject to the DPDP Act still need to assess its requirements separately rather than treating GDPR compliance as sufficient.
What are the key differences between GDPR and DPDP compliance requirements?
1. Scope of personal data
The GDPR applies broadly to personal data relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. It also applies to non-automated processing where the personal data forms part of, or is intended to form part of, a structured non-digital filing system.
The DPDP has a narrower scope in this respect because it applies to digital personal data. This includes data collected digitally as well as personal data collected offline and later digitized. The DPDP Act also excludes certain personal data that has been made publicly available by the Data Principal or by another person who is legally required to make it public.
What this means for organizations: If both laws apply, organizations should identify which datasets and processing activities fall within each framework instead of assuming that the scope is the same.
2. Sensitive and special category personal data
The GDPR identifies specific special categories of personal data, including data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership. It also covers genetic data, biometric data used to uniquely identify a person, health data, and data concerning a person’s sex life or sexual orientation.
Processing these categories of personal data is generally prohibited unless one of the conditions permitted under the GDPR applies.
The DPDP Act does not establish an equivalent general category of special category personal data. Instead, its requirements apply to digital personal data without creating the same classification used under the GDPR.
What this means for organizations: Organizations that already follow GDPR may apply additional controls to certain sensitive data, but they should not assume that GDPR’s special category classifications map directly to the DPDP Act.
3. Terminology and role differences
The GDPR and DPDP Act use different terms for broadly comparable roles:
- Data Subject → Data Principal
- Controller → Data Fiduciary
- Processor → Data Processor
Under the DPDP Act, a Data Principal is the individual to whom the personal data relates. Where the individual is a child, the term also includes the parent or lawful guardian. For a person with a disability, it includes the lawful guardian acting on their behalf.
A Data Fiduciary, like a GDPR controller, determines the purpose and means of processing personal data. A Data Processor, like a GDPR processor, processes personal data on behalf of the Data Fiduciary.
What this means for organizations: These roles are broadly comparable, but they are not legally interchangeable because the rights and obligations attached to them differ under each framework.
4. SDF: A DPDP-specific category
A key difference between the two frameworks is that the DPDP Act creates a separate category called a SDF, while the GDPR does not have a directly equivalent designation.
Under the DPDP Act, the Central Government may designate a Data Fiduciary or class of Data Fiduciaries as significant based on factors such as the volume and sensitivity of personal data processed, the risk to the rights of Data Principals, the sovereignty and integrity of India, electoral democracy, security of the State, and public order.
Under the applicable DPDP provisions, an entity designated as an SDF is subject to additional obligations. These obligations include appointing a Data Protection Officer (DPO) based in India, appointing an independent data auditor, and conducting Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and periodic audits.
The GDPR can also impose additional governance obligations, such as DPIAs and DPO appointments, but these are triggered by specified processing circumstances and risks rather than by an SDF-style organizational classification.
What this means for organizations: Businesses subject to the DPDP Act should assess whether they may be designated as an SDF. If designated, they must prepare for additional governance and oversight requirements that have no direct equivalent under the GDPR.
5. Children’s personal data
Both laws provide additional safeguards for children, but their approaches differ.
Under the GDPR, children receive specific protections. Where processing is based on consent for an information society service offered directly to a child, the GDPR sets the age threshold at 16. EU Member States may lower this threshold, but not below 13.
Under the DPDP Act, a child is generally a person under 18. Processing a child’s personal data generally requires verifiable consent from the parent or lawful guardian, subject to applicable exemptions.
The DPDP Act also restricts processing likely to cause detrimental effects to a child’s well-being and prohibits tracking, behavioral monitoring, and targeted advertising directed at children, subject to specified exemptions.
The DPDP Rules further set out how Data Fiduciaries should verify that the person giving parental consent is an identifiable adult.
What this means for organizations: Multinational organizations may need different age verification and parental consent workflows depending on which law applies.
6. Privacy notices and transparency
The GDPR requires organizations to provide detailed information about how personal data is processed. Depending on the circumstances, this can include the controller’s identity, processing purposes, lawful basis, recipients, international transfers, retention periods, individual rights, and complaint mechanisms.
The DPDP framework also requires Data Fiduciaries to provide clear information, particularly when seeking consent.
Under the DPDP Rules, the notice must be clear and understandable independently of other information provided by the Data Fiduciary. It must include an itemised description of the personal data being processed, explain the specified purposes of processing, and provide a way for Data Principals to withdraw consent, exercise their rights, and make complaints.
What this means for organizations: An existing GDPR privacy notice may provide a useful starting point. However, it should not simply be relabeled as a DPDP notice without checking the specific requirements of the DPDP Act and Rules.
7. Language requirements
The DPDP Act introduces a specific language requirement for consent requests that has no direct equivalent under the GDPR.
Every request for consent must be presented in clear and plain language. Data Principals must also be given the option to access the request in English or any language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
The GDPR also requires information provided to individuals to be concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible, using clear and plain language. However, it does not prescribe an equivalent list of languages in which consent requests must be made available.
What this means for organizations: GDPR requires clear and understandable information but does not prescribe the same multilingual consent option. Under the DPDP Act, organizations relying on consent may need to support consent requests in English and the languages specified in the Eighth Schedule.
8. Legal grounds and certain legitimate uses
The two frameworks take different approaches to the legal grounds for processing personal data. Under Article 6 of the GDPR, processing is lawful only when at least one of six lawful bases applies:
- Consent
- Contract
- Legal obligation
- Vital interests
- Public task
- Legitimate interests
The DPDP Act instead permits processing for a lawful purpose based on consent or for certain legitimate uses specified in the Act.
Contractual necessity: Under the GDPR, personal data may be processed when processing is necessary to perform a contract with the data subject or to take steps at their request before entering into a contract.
The DPDP Act does not establish contractual necessity as an equivalent standalone ground for processing.
An organization using “contract” as its GDPR lawful basis therefore needs to determine which ground under the DPDP Act applies instead of carrying the classification across automatically.
Voluntarily provided personal data: The DPDP Act permits certain processing where a Data Principal voluntarily provides personal data for a specified purpose and has not indicated that they do not consent to its use for that purpose.
This does not directly correspond to the GDPR’s legitimate interests basis.
Employment-related processing: The DPDP Act permits certain processing for employment purposes or for safeguarding an employer from loss or liability. This can include preventing corporate espionage, protecting trade secrets and intellectual property, or providing a service or benefit sought by an employee.
The GDPR does not create an equivalent standalone employment-related lawful basis. Instead, employment-related processing must rely on an applicable GDPR lawful basis, such as contract, legal obligation, or legitimate interests, depending on the circumstances.
Medical emergencies and public health: The DPDP Act expressly permits certain processing to respond to a medical emergency or to provide medical treatment or health services during an epidemic, disease outbreak, or other threat to public health.
The GDPR does not create an equivalent standalone lawful basis labeled for medical emergencies or public health. Instead, processing may rely on grounds such as vital interests or public interest, depending on the circumstances. Where health data is involved, the additional conditions for processing special category data under Article 9 must also be satisfied.
Disasters and public order: The DPDP Act expressly permits certain processing necessary to ensure safety or provide assistance or services during a disaster or breakdown of public order.
The GDPR does not create an equivalent standalone lawful basis for disasters or public order situations. Depending on the circumstances, processing may instead rely on grounds such as vital interests, legal obligation, or public interest/public task under Article 6, with any additional requirements applying where special category data is involved.
What this means for organizations: GDPR lawful bases should not be copied directly into a DPDP compliance program. Organizations subject to both laws should map each processing purpose separately to the grounds available under the applicable framework.
9. Consent requirements
Consent is central to both the GDPR and DPDP frameworks, but their statutory requirements are not identical. Under the GDPR, consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and must involve a clear affirmative indication.
Under the DPDP Act, consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional, and unambiguous with a clear affirmative action. It must relate to a specified purpose and be limited to the personal data necessary for that purpose.
Both frameworks give individuals the right to withdraw consent. Under the GDPR, withdrawal must be as easy as giving consent. The DPDP Act similarly requires the ease of withdrawal to be comparable to the ease with which consent was given.
What this means for organizations: Existing GDPR consent mechanisms can provide a useful starting point. However, organizations should review them against the DPDP Act’s specific requirements, including unconditional consent and limitation to personal data necessary for the specified purpose.
10. Consent Managers
The Consent Manager is a distinct feature of the DPDP framework. The DPDP Rules set additional registration and operational requirements for Consent Managers, including requirements related to organizational capacity, platform interoperability, security, transparency, governance, and independence.
The GDPR does not create an equivalent statutory Consent Manager role.
What this means for organizations: Organizations subject to both frameworks should not map the DPDP Consent Manager to GDPR roles such as a DPO or representative. It is a separate regulated function with its own requirements under the DPDP Act.
11. Data processors and processing agreements
The GDPR places direct statutory obligations on processors as well as controllers. It also requires processing by a processor to be governed by a contract or other legal act containing specified terms.
The DPDP framework takes a somewhat different approach. A Data Processor processes personal data on behalf of a Data Fiduciary. However, the Data Fiduciary remains responsible for complying with the Act for processing carried out on its behalf.
The DPDP Act also allows a Data Fiduciary to engage a Data Processor under a valid contract. The Rules further require those contracts to include appropriate provisions for security safeguards.
What this means for organizations: An existing GDPR Data Processing Agreement may still be useful, but it should be reviewed against DPDP requirements rather than assumed to be sufficient.
12. Security safeguards
Both the GDPR and DPDP frameworks require organizations to protect personal data through appropriate security measures, but they express those requirements differently.
The DPDP Rules require reasonable security safeguards to include, once the relevant provisions apply, measures such as encryption, obfuscation, masking or virtual tokens, access controls, and logging and monitoring. They must also include measures for continued processing, such as backups, contractual safeguards with Data Processors, and appropriate technical and organizational measures.
The GDPR similarly requires controllers and processors to implement technical and organizational measures appropriate to the risk. These may include measures such as pseudonymization, encryption, resilience, restoration of access after an incident, and regular testing of security controls.
What this means for organizations: Organizations subject to both frameworks may be able to use many of the same underlying security controls. However, they should map those controls separately to the specific requirements of the GDPR and DPDP Act.
13. Cross-border data transfers
The GDPR has a detailed framework governing transfers of personal data outside the EEA. Depending on the destination and circumstances, organizations may rely on mechanisms such as:
- Adequacy decisions
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Derogations or other permitted safeguards
The DPDP framework takes a different approach. Under the DPDP Act, the Central Government may restrict transfers of personal data to specified countries or territories outside India.
What this means for organizations: DPDP cross-border transfers should not be treated as an Indian equivalent of the GDPR’s adequacy, Standard Contractual Clauses, or Binding Corporate Rules framework. Organizations subject to both laws need to assess transfer requirements separately under each regime.
14. Data localization
Neither the GDPR nor the DPDP framework imposes a general requirement that all covered personal data remain within its home jurisdiction.
The GDPR regulates transfers of personal data outside the EEA through its international transfer framework rather than through a general localization requirement.
The DPDP framework similarly does not require all personal data to remain in India. However, the DPDP Rules allow specific localization restrictions to apply to SDFs where the Central Government identifies certain personal data and related traffic data that must not be transferred outside India.
What this means for organizations: Both frameworks permit cross-border processing, but the DPDP framework can introduce targeted localization requirements in specified cases. Organizations should therefore assess localization and transfer obligations separately under each law.
15. Records of processing and documentation
The GDPR expressly requires Records of Processing Activities (ROPA) in circumstances covered by Article 30. These records can include processing purposes, categories of individuals and personal data, recipients, international transfers, retention periods, and security measures.
The DPDP Act does not establish a directly equivalent general record-of-processing requirement in the same form. Instead, its documentation and recordkeeping obligations arise through specific requirements under the Act and Rules.
What this means for organizations: GDPR processing inventories can still be useful for DPDP compliance. This is because they help organizations map processing purposes, consent requirements, retention periods, Data Processors, and data transfer flows. However, a GDPR ROPA should not be described as an identical statutory requirement under the DPDP framework.
16. DPIAs, DPOs, and governance
The GDPR requires a DPIA where processing is likely to result in a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms. This can include certain forms of systematic evaluation, large-scale processing of special category data, or systematic monitoring.
The GDPR also requires a DPO in specified circumstances, including certain public sector processing, large-scale regular and systematic monitoring, and large-scale processing of special category or criminal conviction data.
The DPDP Act uses a different governance model. SDFs must appoint a DPO based in India who is responsible to the board of directors or a similar governing body. They must also conduct a DPIA and an audit once every 12 months.
The DPDP framework also requires Data Fiduciaries to make available the contact information of a person who can answer questions from Data Principals about the processing of their personal data.
What this means for organizations: GDPR ties DPIA and DPO requirements to specified processing circumstances and risks. The DPDP framework imposes these additional governance obligations specifically on SDFs.
17. Individual rights under GDPR and DPDP
Both the GDPR and DPDP frameworks provide individuals with rights over their personal data, but the scope and structure of those rights differ.
| Right | GDPR | DPDP Act |
|---|---|---|
| Access/information | Right of access to personal data and related processing information | Right to obtain a summary of personal data being processed and specified processing information |
| Correction | Yes | Yes, including correction, completion, and updating |
| Erasure | Yes, subject to specified conditions and exceptions | Yes, subject to specified conditions |
| Data portability | Yes, in specified circumstances | No directly equivalent general right |
| Object to processing | Yes, in specified circumstances | No directly equivalent standalone right |
| Restriction of processing | Yes, in specified circumstances | No directly equivalent general right |
| Automated decision-making | Specific protections apply under Article 22 | No directly equivalent general right |
| Withdraw consent | Yes | Yes |
| Grievance/complaint | Right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority | Specific right to grievance redressal with the Data Fiduciary or Consent Manager before approaching the Board |
| Nomination | No directly equivalent general right | Yes, in the event of death or incapacity |
Under the DPDP Act, a Data Principal can request specified information about personal data being processed and related processing activities. This differs from the broader access framework provided under GDPR Article 15.
The DPDP Act also gives Data Principals the right to nominate another individual to exercise their rights in the event of death or incapacity.
The GDPR, in contrast, provides rights such as data portability, restriction of processing, objection in specified circumstances, and protections relating to certain automated decisions that do not have directly equivalent general rights under the DPDP Act.
What this means for organizations: Organizations subject to both frameworks should not assume that a GDPR data-subject-rights workflow maps directly to DPDP. Request types, response processes, and available rights should be mapped separately under each law.
18. Grievance redressal and complaints
The DPDP Act expressly gives Data Principals a right to readily available means of grievance redressal through the Data Fiduciary or Consent Manager. Before approaching the Data Protection Board of India, a Data Principal must first exhaust the grievance redressal opportunity available under the DPDP framework.
The GDPR takes a different approach. Data subjects have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority if they believe the processing of their personal data infringes the GDPR. It does not establish the same general requirement to first exhaust an internal grievance mechanism.
What this means for organizations: Organizations subject to the DPDP framework need a clear internal grievance process that Data Principals can use before escalating a matter to the Board. This is a more explicit procedural requirement than the complaint structure under the GDPR.
19. Personal data breach notification
Breach notification is one of the clearest operational differences between the two frameworks.
Under the GDPR, a controller generally must notify the relevant supervisory authority without undue delay after becoming aware of a personal data breach. Where feasible, this must happen within 72 hours, unless the breach is unlikely to result in a risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms.
Affected individuals generally need to be notified only where the breach is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms.
The DPDP framework does not use the same risk thresholds. Once the relevant provisions apply, a Data Fiduciary must notify the Data Protection Board of India and each affected Data Principal in the event of a personal data breach.
Under the DPDP Rules, affected Data Principals must be notified without delay. The Board must also receive an initial notification without delay, followed by specified detailed information within 72 hours, or within a longer period allowed by the Board.
Organizations in India may also have separate reporting obligations under the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) requirements for certain cyber incidents, including data breaches or data leaks.
What this means for organizations: A GDPR breach response matrix should not be reused unchanged for DPDP. Organizations subject to both frameworks should maintain separate notification triggers, recipients, and reporting timelines.
20. Retention and deletion
The GDPR incorporates the principle of storage limitation. Personal data should generally not be kept in identifiable form for longer than necessary for the purposes for which it is processed, subject to specified exceptions.
The DPDP Act also links retention to purpose and legal necessity. Once the relevant provisions apply, a Data Fiduciary must erase personal data when the Data Principal withdraws consent or when it is reasonable to assume that the specified purpose is no longer being served, unless retention is required by law.
The DPDP Act also gives Data Principals a right to request erasure. Upon receiving such a request, the Data Fiduciary must erase the personal data unless retention remains necessary for the specified purpose or for compliance with law.
What this means for organizations: Retention schedules should be assessed separately under each framework. A GDPR retention policy may still be useful, but it should not be assumed to satisfy DPDP requirements without review.
21. Penalties and enforcement
The GDPR uses a tiered administrative fine structure. For specified serious infringements, penalties can reach up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover from the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
The DPDP Act uses a different model. It assigns maximum monetary penalties to specified contraventions rather than applying a global turnover formula.
For example, a failure to take reasonable security safeguards to prevent a personal data breach can attract a penalty of up to ₹250 crore. Other contraventions are subject to different maximum penalties under the Act.
What this means for organizations: Comparing only the headline maximums can be misleading. The GDPR and DPDP Act differ in how penalties are calculated, which violations trigger them, and how enforcement is structured.
Can GDPR compliance make an organization DPDP compliant?
No. GDPR compliance does not automatically establish DPDP compliance. The better way to think about the relationship is that a GDPR program can provide a foundation. For example, an organization may already have:
- Data inventory
- Privacy notices
- Consent management processes
- Security controls
- Vendor governance
- Data subject request procedures
- Breach response workflows
- Retention schedules
- Governance documentation
Those capabilities can reduce the amount of new operational work required. But the organization still needs to identify DPDP-specific gaps. Important examples include:
- Re-mapping processing grounds where GDPR relies on contract or legitimate interests
- Reviewing DPDP consent and notice requirements
- Supporting applicable language requirements
- Implementing children’s data requirements based on the under-18 threshold
- Supporting Data Principal grievance and nomination rights
- Reviewing processor arrangements
- Adapting breach notification procedures
- Monitoring cross-border transfer restrictions
- Assessing SDF obligations
- Reviewing retention and deletion logic
Organizations with established GDPR programs may already have many useful privacy controls in place. However, they still need to identify where DPDP introduces different requirements, terminology, rights, governance obligations, and operational processes.
GDPR vs DPDP compliance: What should organizations do if both apply?
Organizations subject to both frameworks should build a common privacy control foundation while maintaining separate legal mappings.
Organizations can consider the following practical sequence:
- Map processing activities by jurisdiction: Identify what personal data is collected, where individuals are located, where processing occurs, and where data is transferred.
- Determine which framework applies: A processing activity may fall under GDPR, DPDP, both, or neither.
- Map legal roles: Identify controllers/Data Fiduciaries and processors/Data Processors for each activity.
- Review processing grounds: Do not assume a GDPR basis such as contract or legitimate interests has an equivalent DPDP basis.
- Review notices and consent: Check required disclosures, purpose specificity, withdrawal flows, and language availability.
- Review children’s data workflows: Account for differing age thresholds and verifiable parental or guardian consent.
- Map individual rights: Build workflows for the rights actually provided under each regime.
- Implement DPDP grievance handling: Define ownership, escalation, tracking, and response processes.
- Review Data Processor contracts: Ensure security, deletion, incident cooperation, and other relevant responsibilities are addressed.
- Reassess retention schedules: Tie retention to purposes and applicable legal requirements.
- Update breach response: Reflect DPDP reporting obligations rather than applying only GDPR risk thresholds.
- Review international transfers: Monitor Indian government restrictions separately from GDPR transfer mechanisms.
- Assess SDF exposure: Determine whether future designation could trigger enhanced governance requirements.
- Monitor implementation guidance: The DPDP Act and Rules have phased commencement dates. Organizations should confirm which provisions are in force and continue tracking government notifications and guidance.
How can Scalefusion support GDPR and DPDP compliance efforts?
The GDPR and DPDP both require organizations to protect personal data, manage access, reduce security risks, and maintain appropriate safeguards. Although the legal obligations under the two frameworks differ, many of the underlying technical controls can overlap.
Scalefusion can support the technical side of broader GDPR and DPDP programs through its DPDPA compliance software. Scalefusion UEM can further support these efforts through endpoint management and policy enforcement. OneIdP adds granular identity management and device context-based access controls, while Veltar provides endpoint compliance, vulnerability management, and data protection capabilities.
- Endpoint security and policy enforcement: Leverage Scalefusion UEM to configure and enforce device policies, security settings, and restrictions across managed endpoints.
- Vulnerability and patch management: Manage vulnerabilities using Veltar, identifying and prioritizing security weaknesses across supported Windows and macOS endpoints. Remediate applicable findings with patch management through Scalefusion UEM.
- Access control: Use OneIdP to manage access to corporate resources based on user identity and device context.
- Data protection: Enable endpoint data loss prevention (DLP) using Veltar. Reduce unauthorized movement or exposure of sensitive data and control peripheral access on supported platforms.
- Device visibility and reporting: Maintain visibility into managed device inventory, configured endpoint compliance status, and relevant device and policy activity through Scalefusion reports.
- Incident response: Remotely lock, wipe, or otherwise secure managed devices when they are lost, compromised, or no longer authorized.
For organizations subject to GDPR, these controls can support technical and organizational measures used within a broader privacy and security program. For organizations subject to the DPDP framework, they can support reasonable security safeguards and broader compliance readiness efforts.
Scalefusion does not replace the legal, consent, governance, transparency, or individual rights obligations required under either framework. Its role is to provide technical controls that can support an organization’s wider GDPR and DPDP compliance programs.
Build separate compliance mappings for GDPR and DPDP
The GDPR and DPDP share several privacy and security principles, but they are not interchangeable. Organizations subject to both frameworks can often reuse underlying controls, such as security measures, processor governance, retention processes, and incident response workflows.
The legal mapping, however, should remain separate. Processing grounds, individual rights, breach requirements, governance obligations, and transfer rules need to be assessed under each framework.
The practical priority is to maintain a shared control foundation where possible while documenting the legal requirements, responsibilities, and implementation status of each framework independently. That approach helps organizations avoid assuming equivalence while still making efficient use of existing privacy and security processes.