Belgium data protection 2026 has entered a more demanding phase. The Belgian Data Protection Authority - known as the Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit or GBA - has intensified its enforcement posture, new guidance has been issued on artificial intelligence and cross-border data flows, and recent court rulings have clarified the liability exposure of controllers and processors operating in Belgium. This guide covers the most significant regulatory and legal developments of the current quarter, explains their practical implications for businesses, and identifies the compliance steps that cannot be deferred.
The GBA has published updated guidance on the lawful bases for processing personal data, with particular attention to legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation. The guidance clarifies that controllers must conduct a genuine balancing test and document it in writing before relying on legitimate interests. Reliance on this basis without documented assessment is now treated as a standalone infringement, separate from any underlying processing violation.
The GBA has also issued a sector-specific recommendation addressed to the financial services industry. The recommendation addresses the use of automated decision-making and profiling in credit scoring and fraud detection. Controllers in this sector must now provide more granular information in privacy notices about the logic of automated systems and the significance of the outcomes they produce. The recommendation does not have the force of law, but the GBA has signalled it will treat non-compliance as evidence of bad faith in any subsequent investigation.
A further development concerns data retention. The GBA';s inspection unit has begun issuing preliminary findings in a series of coordinated audits targeting retail and e-commerce operators. The preliminary findings indicate that many businesses are retaining customer transaction data well beyond the periods they have declared in their records of processing activities. Controllers should treat this as a prompt to audit their actual retention practices against their documented policies.
The GBA issued several notable decisions in the current period. In one case, a medium-sized Belgian employer was fined for failing to carry out a data protection impact assessment before deploying a continuous employee monitoring system. The GBA found that the processing was high-risk under Article 35 of the GDPR because it involved systematic monitoring of behaviour in the workplace. The decision confirms that the obligation to conduct a DPIA is triggered by the nature of the processing, not by the scale of the organisation.
In a second decision, a healthcare provider was found to have violated the principle of data minimisation by collecting identity document copies from all patients as a matter of routine, regardless of the specific service being provided. The GBA held that collecting a full document copy where only a name and date of birth were needed was disproportionate. The practical lesson is that data minimisation must be assessed at the level of each specific processing operation, not applied as a blanket organisational policy.
A third decision addressed the rights of data subjects. A Belgian online retailer was found to have failed to respond to a subject access request within the one-month period required under Article 12 of the GDPR. The GBA rejected the controller';s argument that the request was complex, noting that the controller had not communicated any extension to the data subject within the initial one-month window. Controllers must communicate extensions proactively and in writing before the first deadline expires.
In practice, founders and compliance officers should consider these decisions as a map of the GBA';s current enforcement priorities: workplace monitoring, healthcare data, and data subject rights response times are all active areas of scrutiny.
The intersection of AI systems and data protection law is now one of the GBA';s stated priorities. The authority has published a position paper on the use of generative AI tools in business contexts. The paper addresses three core questions: whether using a third-party AI tool constitutes a transfer of personal data to a processor, what contractual safeguards are required, and how controllers should handle the risk that AI-generated outputs may contain personal data about individuals who did not consent to such processing.
The GBA';s position is that most commercial AI tools used in a business context involve processor relationships under Article 28 of the GDPR. Controllers must therefore have a valid data processing agreement in place before feeding personal data into such tools. A common mistake is treating AI tool providers as independent controllers or as mere utilities outside the GDPR framework entirely. Neither characterisation is correct under Belgian regulatory practice.
The position paper also addresses the right to explanation under Article 22. Where an AI system produces a decision that significantly affects an individual - such as a hiring recommendation or a credit decision - the controller must be able to explain the decision in meaningful terms. Relying on the AI provider';s own documentation is not sufficient. Controllers must understand the system well enough to explain its outputs to the individuals affected.
For businesses deploying AI in customer-facing or HR contexts, the practical implication is clear: vendor due diligence must now include a data protection assessment, and contracts must be reviewed to ensure Article 28 compliance. If you are uncertain whether your current AI tool arrangements meet these requirements, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can assist with contract reviews and data protection impact assessments.
Cross-border data transfers remain a complex area. The European Commission';s adequacy decisions and the standard contractual clauses framework continue to govern most transfers from Belgium to third countries. However, the GBA has issued updated guidance on the transfer impact assessment - known as a TIA - that controllers must conduct before relying on standard contractual clauses for transfers to high-risk destinations.
The updated guidance specifies that a TIA must assess not only the legal framework of the destination country but also the practical effectiveness of the protections available. Controllers must document their assessment in writing and update it whenever there is a material change in the legal or factual circumstances of the transfer. A TIA that was prepared several years ago and has not been reviewed is unlikely to satisfy the GBA';s current expectations.
The guidance also addresses onward transfers - situations where a processor in a third country transfers data to a sub-processor in another third country. Controllers remain responsible for the entire transfer chain. A non-obvious requirement is that the original data processing agreement must explicitly authorise onward transfers and impose equivalent safeguards on sub-processors. Many businesses discover this gap only when the GBA requests documentation during an investigation.
Belgian businesses with operations in the United States, India, or other jurisdictions without an adequacy decision should treat the updated TIA guidance as an immediate compliance action item. The GBA has indicated that transfer compliance will be an area of active audit in the coming months.
The developments described above translate into a concrete set of compliance actions for businesses. The following areas require immediate attention.
Records of processing activities must be current and accurate. The GBA';s audit findings indicate that many organisations have records that do not reflect actual practice, particularly on retention periods and the identity of processors. Controllers should conduct an internal audit comparing documented practices against operational reality.
Data processing agreements must be in place with all processors, including technology vendors and AI tool providers. Agreements must meet the minimum content requirements of Article 28(3) of the GDPR. Agreements that predate the current guidance on AI tools should be reviewed and updated.
Data protection impact assessments must be conducted before deploying any high-risk processing system. The GBA';s list of processing types that presumptively require a DPIA includes systematic employee monitoring, large-scale processing of sensitive data, and automated decision-making with significant effects. Controllers should not wait for a complaint or investigation to trigger this assessment.
Privacy notices must be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. The GBA';s recent decisions indicate that notices which are generic, outdated, or fail to describe automated processing in sufficient detail will be treated as non-compliant. Notices should be reviewed against the current processing operations of the business, not against a template.
Data subject rights procedures must be tested. Controllers should verify that their internal processes can actually deliver a complete and accurate response to a subject access request within one month. Many underestimate the operational complexity of this obligation, particularly where data is held across multiple systems.
A practical scenario: a Belgian e-commerce business that recently integrated a third-party AI recommendation engine should immediately check whether it has a data processing agreement with the AI provider, whether its privacy notice discloses the use of automated profiling, and whether it has conducted a DPIA. Failure on any of these points creates direct enforcement exposure.
A second scenario: a Belgian employer deploying a new HR platform that includes performance analytics should treat the deployment as a high-risk processing activity, conduct a DPIA before go-live, and ensure that employee-facing privacy information describes the logic and consequences of the analytics system.
Several developments are expected to affect Belgian data protection practice in the near term. The GBA is expected to publish finalised guidance on cookie consent and tracking technologies, following a consultation period that has now closed. The draft guidance takes a stricter position on consent banners than current industry practice, and businesses that rely heavily on behavioural advertising should begin preparing for a more restrictive compliance standard.
The interplay between the EU AI Act and the GDPR is also expected to generate further regulatory output. The GBA has indicated it will coordinate with the Belgian AI supervisory authority on cases that involve both frameworks. Controllers using AI systems that fall within the high-risk categories defined by the AI Act should begin mapping their obligations under both instruments now, rather than waiting for joint guidance to be published.
The Network and Information Security Directive - known as NIS2 - continues to be implemented across Belgian sectors. Entities in scope must ensure that their cybersecurity measures meet the requirements of the Belgian NIS2 transposition legislation. A data breach that results from inadequate cybersecurity measures may now trigger parallel investigations under both the GDPR and NIS2, with cumulative penalty exposure.
Finally, the GBA has announced a thematic investigation into the data protection practices of small and medium-sized enterprises. This is significant because SMEs have historically assumed that enforcement attention would focus on large organisations. The GBA has made clear that size is not a mitigating factor when the violation is systemic or involves sensitive data.
---
Does a small Belgian business need a data protection officer?
The obligation to appoint a data protection officer under Article 37 of the GDPR depends on the nature of the processing, not the size of the organisation. A small business that carries out large-scale processing of sensitive data, or that systematically monitors individuals, must appoint a DPO regardless of its headcount or turnover. Many small businesses in healthcare, financial services, and HR technology fall within this obligation without realising it. The GBA does not treat the absence of a DPO as a minor administrative gap; it treats it as a structural compliance failure. Businesses that are uncertain whether they are required to appoint a DPO should seek legal advice before concluding they are exempt.
How quickly must a Belgian business notify the GBA of a personal data breach?
Under Article 33 of the GDPR, a controller must notify the GBA of a personal data breach within 72 hours of becoming aware of it, where the breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. The 72-hour clock starts when the controller has enough information to determine that a reportable breach has occurred - not when the investigation is complete. A common mistake is delaying notification until the full scope of the breach is known. Controllers should notify the GBA with the information available at the time and supplement the notification as further details emerge. Late notification is itself a violation and will be treated as an aggravating factor in any penalty assessment.
What is the GBA';s approach to setting fines, and how large can they be?
The GBA applies the GDPR';s two-tier penalty structure. Less serious violations can attract fines of up to ten million EUR or two percent of global annual turnover, whichever is higher. More serious violations - including breaches of the lawful basis requirements, data subject rights, and cross-border transfer rules - can attract fines of up to twenty million EUR or four percent of global annual turnover. In practice, the GBA considers the nature, gravity, and duration of the violation, the degree of cooperation, and any remedial steps taken. Fines against Belgian SMEs have typically been in the lower range, but the GBA has signalled that repeat violations and bad-faith conduct will result in significantly higher penalties. Proactive compliance and documented remediation are the most effective mitigating factors.
---
Belgium';s data protection landscape is evolving rapidly. The GBA is more active, its guidance is more detailed, and its enforcement decisions are setting clearer expectations for businesses of all sizes. Controllers and processors operating in Belgium must treat compliance as an ongoing operational discipline, not a one-time project.
VLO Law Firms advises international clients on data protection matters in Belgium. We can assist with GDPR compliance reviews, data processing agreements, DPIAs, data subject rights procedures, and GBA investigation support. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com