Report comment

I'm really not sure that qualified lawyers should be taking any advice from unqualified commentators with a vested interest.

While it is true that the need for consent has been exaggerated by some, there are still many organisations out there that are reliant on consent where the consent is being a) bundled with an unrelated service offering; or b) dealt with on an op-out basis; or c) simply not being obtained at all. I would cite, as examples, several Train Operating Company mobile applications which include opt-out consent from marketing information; and a national newspaper small-adds section which appears to mandate (bundle) consent for marketing with a small-add enquiry, both of which are unlawful under GDPR.

This is not scaremongering. While the ICO appears to be passive at present, there is no way of remedying a breach after the fact under GDPR and therefore even if it takes a while, one or more aggrieved data subjects could cause significant problems for business at a cost which is disproportionate to the cost of fixing the business model in the first place. Moreover, data subjects are free to complain to any European regulator and any data subject not in the UK may well do so after we have left the EU. Many EU regulators are not as passive as the ICO appears to be.

There is no evidence that the football club cited had received bona-fide legal advice in any event.

My concern is the very large number of non-legally qualified pundits out there taking money from businesses for what amount to legal advice.