DPDPA vs GDPR: Desi Meets Videshi

Introduction: When Bharat Meets Brussels

In August 2023, India passed the much-anticipated Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), marking its formal entry into the global privacy regime. Across the globe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has long been the gold standard for data privacy, influencing legislation from California to Kenya. But how does India’s “desi” approach to data privacy compare with Europe’s well-established “videsi” model?

In this blog, we break down the key similarities and differences between DPDPA and GDPR, explore their impact on businesses and individuals, and help privacy professionals understand how to navigate both with confidence. Whether you're a startup in Delhi or a data controller in Düsseldorf, this comparison will equip you with a clear, insightful view of both frameworks.

DPDPA vs GDPR: A Privacy Powerplay

Meta’s officialprivacy policy outlines how the company collects user data across its platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and leverages machine learning to manage privacy settings, monitor content, and protect users from data misuse. AI tools are used to automatically recommend personalized privacy controls, flag policy violations, detect suspicious behavior, and log access to user data by internal staff. These systems aim to minimize human error and offer real-time responses to potential breaches.

In theory, such AI-enabled tools enhance data protection by scaling efforts that would be nearly impossible to manage manually. In practice, however, questions arise about the transparency, fairness, and contextual accuracy of these systems, especially in environments where privacy norms are still evolving, like the Metaverse.

1. Philosophical Foundation: Consent vs Control

At the core of both DPDPA and GDPR lies the aim of protecting personal data, but their philosophical approaches differ. GDPR takes a broader view, emphasizing user control and accountability through multiple lawful bases for data processing. These include consent, contractual necessity, legal obligations, vital interests, public interest, and the legitimate interest of the data controller. This flexibility allows organizations to process data even without explicit consent, provided other legal bases apply. DPDPA, on the other hand, places consent at the center. Data processing under DPDPA primarily hinges on user consent, which must be free, specific, informed, and unambiguous. While this simplifies enforcement and enhances user clarity, it can reduce operational flexibility for businesses. Notably, DPDPA does not explicitly recognize "legitimate interest" as a basis for data processing, marking a significant point of divergence from GDPR.

2. Territorial Scope: Who’s Affected?

Both laws extend beyond their geographic borders, asserting regulatory authority over companies outside their jurisdictions if they process data belonging to their residents. GDPR is well-known for its extraterritorial application, it applies to any organization that processes the personal data of EU residents, regardless of where the business is located. Similarly, DPDPA has extraterritorial reach. It applies to digital personal data processing outside India if it involves offering goods or services to individuals in India. This means that businesses around the world that target Indian users will have to comply with DPDPA, just as those targeting EU users must comply with GDPR. In practice, this creates a compliance challenge for global companies who serve both Indian and European audiences.

3. Personal Data & Sensitive Data: Definitions Matter

GDPR provides a layered approach to data classification. It defines personal data broadly to include anything that can identify a person—names, phone numbers, IP addresses, or even behavioral data. It also introduces a category of sensitive personal data, which includes health data, religious beliefs, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, sexual orientation, and biometric data. These categories require heightened protections and stricter conditions for processing. In contrast, DPDPA simplifies this approach. It does not define "sensitive personal data" separately. All personal data is treated uniformly under the Act. This reduces complexity but may also lead to challenges in addressing risks unique to sensitive data unless future rules specify additional categories for special protection. In this respect, GDPR provides more nuance, while DPDPA opts for simplicity and scalability.

4. Data Principal Rights: Your Privacy Toolkit

Both GDPR and DPDPA grant important rights to individuals, empowering them to control how their data is collected, stored, and used. Under GDPR, individuals (data subjects) have the right to access their data, request corrections, demand erasure, and even request data portability, allowing them to move their data across platforms. GDPR also grants the right to object to certain types of processing, such as direct marketing. DPDPA similarly provides rights to access, correction, erasure, and grievance redressal. However, it does not include rights to data portability or the right to object to processing. This results in fewer user empowerment mechanisms under DPDPA, especially when compared to GDPR’s comprehensive set of rights. That said, DPDPA does aim to be citizen-friendly by simplifying the exercise of rights through online consent managers and centralized grievance platforms.

5. Compliance Requirements: Who’s Responsible?

The GDPR outlines strict obligations for data controllers and data processors, including maintaining records of processing, conducting Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), appointing Data Protection Officers (DPOs), and notifying data breaches within 72 hours. These measures are intended to ensure proactive accountability and risk mitigation. DPDPA introduces similar responsibilities but structures them differently. The term "Data Fiduciary" in DPDPA is analogous to GDPR’s "Data Controller," while "Significant Data Fiduciaries" are subject to enhanced compliance requirements based on factors like volume of data processed, risk to rights, and processing of children’s data. Such entities must appoint DPOs and conduct regular audits. However, DPDPA is less prescriptive than GDPR and places more discretion in the hands of the proposed Data Protection Board of India, which can issue further rules and guidelines. GDPR’s enforcement is backed by experienced Data Protection Authorities across the EU, whereas DPDPA’s enforcement ecosystem is still evolving.

The Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) plays a central role in ensuring compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It functions as a quasi-judicial authority with powers to:

• Inquire into personal data breaches and other violations of the Act.
• Impose penalties on data fiduciaries (organizations handling personal data) who fail to comply with the Act’s requirements.
• Adjudicate complaints filed by data principals (individuals whose data is processed) when their rights are violated.
• Issue directions or orders for remedial measures, including data breach notifications and actions to protect individuals’ personal data.

6. Children’s Data: Protecting the Young

When it comes to protecting children’s data, DPDPA takes a stricter stance than GDPR. The GDPR sets the age of digital consent at 16, with the option for member states to lower it to 13. It requires parental consent for children under this age. However, GDPR allows targeted advertising and data profiling under certain conditions, even for minors, as long as appropriate safeguards are in place. DPDPA, in contrast, sets the digital age of consent at 18 and flatly prohibits tracking, behavioral monitoring, and targeted advertising directed at children. This higher age threshold may reflect cultural expectations in India and aims to offer stronger protections for minors. While well-intentioned, it may pose operational challenges for platforms that cater to teenage users who, under DPDPA, are considered minors and subject to higher protections.

7. Penalties: What’s at Stake?

The penalties under GDPR have been headline-making, with some of the world’s largest tech companies fined millions of euros for non-compliance. The regulation allows for penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of a company’s global annual turnover, whichever is higher. DPDPA, too, introduces a significant penalty framework, with fines reaching up to ₹250 crore (approximately €28 million) per instance of breach. The newly formed Data Protection Board of India has discretionary powers to investigate breaches, demand corrective actions, and impose penalties. While GDPR has a more established track record in enforcement, DPDPA’s fine structures suggest that India intends to treat non-compliance seriously. The challenge, however, will lie in how consistently and transparently enforcement is carried out once the Board is fully operational.

Real-World Example: Multinational Compliance Challenge

Imagine a fintech company headquartered in Bangalore that serves both Indian and European users through a mobile app. For its Indian users, the company must comply with DPDPA by collecting clear consent, appointing a grievance officer, and processing data in accordance with user rights. If it also collects data from EU residents, the firm must ensure GDPR compliance as well—this includes identifying lawful bases for data processing, ensuring adequate data transfers using Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), and possibly appointing an EU representative. This dual compliance scenario is not hypothetical, it reflects the operational reality for thousands of businesses operating in global markets. Understanding both frameworks isn’t just about legal compliance, it’s about building digital trust with users across borders.

Conclusion: One Goal, Two Roads

Both the DPDPA and GDPR strive toward the same fundamental objective that is ensuring that individuals have control over their personal data in a digital ecosystem increasingly dominated by algorithms, platforms, and global data flows. However, the way they approach this goal reflects their unique political, cultural, and economic contexts. GDPR is detailed, deeply rooted in fundamental rights, and backed by an experienced enforcement apparatus. DPDPA is leaner, consent-driven, and tailored to India's priorities of ease of doing business, digital inclusion, and data sovereignty.

For privacy professionals, this means not just understanding the legal language of each law, but interpreting how it translates into day-to-day data handling practices. Businesses must assess which jurisdictions they serve, evaluate their data flows, and design compliance mechanisms accordingly. For Indian organizations with global ambitions, mastering both DPDPA and GDPR will become a core capability in building trust, avoiding penalties, and unlocking new markets.

Want to stay ahead in the privacy game? Learn more with CourseKonnect – explore our live and recorded courses that break down real-world compliance into actionable insights!

References:

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 

2. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Official Text

3. European Data Protection Board – Guidelines​​

4. IAPP: India’s DPDPA vs GDPR Comparative Insights

5. CJEU Case Law on GDPR Enforcement​