GDPR Article 24 is one of the most important yet frequently misunderstood provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation. While many GDPR articles focus on specific rights, obligations, or technical requirements, Article 24 establishes a foundational principle: the controller is responsible not only for complying with the GDPR but also for being able to demonstrate that compliance.
This article acts as the backbone of GDPR accountability. It shifts data protection away from a “checklist” approach and toward a risk-based, ongoing responsibility model. Controllers are no longer allowed to simply claim compliance. They must actively design, implement, monitor, and improve their data protection measures based on the nature, scope, context, and purposes of processing.
What GDPR Article 24 Actually Says (Plain English Interpretation)
GDPR Article 24 requires controllers to:
-
Implement appropriate technical and organizational measures
-
Ensure that personal data processing complies with the GDPR
-
Take into account:
-
The nature of the processing
-
The scope of the processing
-
The context of the processing
-
The purposes of the processing
-
The risks to the rights and freedoms of individuals
-
-
Be able to demonstrate compliance at any time
This means compliance is not static. A measure that is appropriate today may not be sufficient tomorrow if the processing changes, scales, or introduces new risks.
The Accountability Principle at the Core of Article 24
Article 24 operationalizes the GDPR’s accountability principle. Accountability is not about paperwork for its own sake. It is about responsibility with evidence.
Under Article 24:
-
You are responsible even if you outsource processing
-
You are responsible even if no breach occurs
-
You are responsible even if individuals never complain
Accountability requires proactive behavior. Controllers must anticipate risks, prevent harm, and continuously evaluate whether their safeguards are still adequate.
“Appropriate” Measures: What Does That Really Mean?
GDPR deliberately avoids prescribing exact measures because organizations differ widely in size, resources, and risk profiles. What is appropriate for a multinational platform is not the same as for a small local business.
Appropriate measures are determined by:
-
Volume of personal data
-
Sensitivity of the data
-
Vulnerability of the data subjects
-
Use of automated decision-making
-
Cross-border processing
-
Likelihood and severity of harm
Examples of measures may include internal policies, staff training, access controls, encryption, logging, incident response plans, regular audits, and governance structures.
Technical Measures Under Article 24
Technical measures are practical, system-level safeguards that protect data.
These may include:
-
Access control systems limiting who can view or modify data
-
Strong authentication mechanisms
-
Encryption at rest and in transit
-
Logging and monitoring of data access
-
Secure backups and recovery procedures
-
Separation of test and production environments
Article 24 does not demand “state-of-the-art” security for every controller, but it does demand reasonable security relative to risk.
Organizational Measures Under Article 24
Organizational measures focus on people, processes, and governance.
Examples include:
-
Clear internal data protection policies
-
Defined roles and responsibilities
-
Staff training and awareness programs
-
Vendor management procedures
-
Data protection impact assessments where required
-
Incident response and breach notification workflows
-
Regular reviews of compliance measures
A technically secure system without proper organizational controls is still non-compliant under Article 24.
Demonstrating Compliance: The Hidden Obligation
One of the most critical elements of Article 24 is the obligation to demonstrate compliance. It is not enough to say “we comply.”
Demonstration may involve:
-
Written policies and procedures
-
Internal records of processing activities
-
Evidence of staff training
-
Logs of access controls and audits
-
Documentation of risk assessments
-
Proof of corrective actions after incidents
If a supervisory authority asks how compliance is ensured, the controller must be able to explain and substantiate it clearly.
Article 24 and the Risk-Based Approach
Article 24 embeds a risk-based approach into GDPR compliance.
Low-risk processing may require simpler controls. High-risk processing requires stronger safeguards and closer oversight. Controllers must regularly reassess risks as technology, scale, or business models evolve.
Failure to reassess risk over time is itself a breach of Article 24.
Relationship Between Article 24 and Other GDPR Articles
Article 24 does not operate in isolation. It connects directly with:
-
Article 5 (principles of processing)
-
Article 25 (data protection by design and by default)
-
Article 30 (records of processing activities)
-
Article 32 (security of processing)
-
Article 35 (data protection impact assessments)
Article 24 ensures that these obligations are not treated as one-time tasks but as part of a coherent compliance framework.
Common Misunderstandings About Article 24
Many organizations misunderstand Article 24 in several ways.
Some believe compliance is achieved by:
-
Having a privacy policy
-
Using a consent banner
-
Outsourcing to a processor
-
Buying compliance software
Article 24 makes it clear that responsibility cannot be delegated and cannot be automated away. Tools help, but governance and judgment remain essential.
Enforcement and Penalties Related to Article 24
Failure to comply with Article 24 can result in:
-
Administrative fines
-
Corrective orders
-
Mandatory audits
-
Reputational damage
Because Article 24 is foundational, breaches often accompany other violations. Supervisory authorities frequently reference Article 24 when criticizing poor governance, lack of oversight, or systemic failures.
Five Practical Examples of GDPR Article 24 in Action
Example 1: Small E-Commerce Business Scaling Operations
A small online store initially processes customer names, emails, and shipping addresses. As it grows, it introduces loyalty programs, behavioral tracking, and email marketing automation.
Under Article 24, the controller must reassess whether existing safeguards are still appropriate. Measures that were sufficient at launch may no longer be adequate. The business must introduce clearer access controls, updated policies, staff training, and better vendor oversight.
Failing to update measures despite increased risk would violate Article 24.
Example 2: SaaS Platform Using Third-Party Processors
A SaaS company relies on multiple cloud providers and analytics tools. While processors handle the data, the company remains the controller.
Article 24 requires the company to:
-
Assess processor risks
-
Implement contractual safeguards
-
Monitor processor compliance
-
Maintain internal oversight
Simply trusting vendors without ongoing control would breach the controller’s responsibility.
Example 3: Employer Handling Employee Data
An employer processes payroll data, health information, and performance records. This data is sensitive and affects vulnerable individuals.
Article 24 obliges the employer to:
-
Limit internal access strictly
-
Train HR staff regularly
-
Document processing purposes
-
Secure physical and digital records
Ignoring internal misuse risks or relying on informal practices would violate Article 24.
Example 4: Mobile App Introducing New Features
A mobile app initially collects basic account data. Later, it adds location tracking and behavioral analytics.
Article 24 requires the controller to:
-
Reevaluate risk
-
Implement stronger safeguards
-
Update internal policies
-
Possibly conduct a DPIA
Continuing with old safeguards after introducing higher-risk processing is non-compliant.
Example 5: Data Breach and Post-Incident Review
A company experiences a minor data breach with limited impact. Even if notification obligations are met, Article 24 requires more.
The controller must:
-
Analyze root causes
-
Improve safeguards
-
Update procedures
-
Train staff if needed
Failing to learn from the incident and prevent recurrence breaches Article 24’s accountability principle.
Article 24 as a Living Obligation
One of the most important aspects of Article 24 is that it creates a continuous obligation. Compliance is not something achieved once and forgotten.
Controllers must:
-
Monitor changes in processing
-
Track technological developments
-
Adjust safeguards to evolving risks
-
Review policies and practices regularly
This makes GDPR compliance an ongoing governance function, not a legal afterthought.
Why Article 24 Matters More Than It Appears
Article 24 may seem abstract, but it is the foundation upon which enforcement decisions are built. When something goes wrong, regulators often ask:
-
Who was responsible?
-
What safeguards were in place?
-
Why were they considered appropriate?
-
How was compliance monitored?
If the controller cannot answer these questions convincingly, Article 24 has likely been breached.
Final Thoughts
GDPR Article 24 defines what it truly means to be a data controller. It requires responsibility, foresight, structure, and evidence. It transforms GDPR from a list of rules into a system of governance rooted in accountability and risk management.
Organizations that understand and implement Article 24 correctly are not just legally compliant. They are better prepared, more resilient, and more trustworthy in the eyes of users, regulators, and partners.
In a regulatory environment where trust and transparency matter more than ever, Article 24 is not merely a requirement. It is a standard of responsible data stewardship.