GDPR VS PDPL: A Comparative Assessment Of Global Data Protection Laws

Both laws emerged in response to growing public concern around privacy in a data-centric world, but from different policy landscapes.

GDPR: Policy Cohesion Across Member States

Adopted in 2016 and enforced from May 2018, the GDPR was designed to unify data protection laws across EU member states and modernize outdated directives. Its extraterritorial reach, encompassing any entity processing EU residents’ data regardless of geographic location, redefined the global compliance map. It prioritizes individual autonomy, and its broad scope has set the tone for subsequent regulations worldwide.

PDPL: Sovereign Control Over Data Governance

Saudi Arabia’s PDPL, enforced in March 2023, stems from the Kingdom’s strategic focus on digital transformation, economic diversification, and national security. Supervised initially by the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA), the PDPL is intended to regulate how personal data is collected, processed, and shared both within and beyond national borders. A key focus lies in data sovereignty, with restrictive controls on international data transfers and a strong emphasis on citizen protection.

Foundational Definitions and Core Concepts

Both laws define personal data similarly, meaning any information capable of identifying a natural person; however, their granularity and scope differ.

The GDPR establishes clear distinctions in responsibility between data controllers and processors and encompasses a broad array of processing activities, including collection, storage, profiling, and erasure.

In contrast, the PDPL utilizes similar terminology but provides more operational examples, specifically listing types of data (e.g., bank account numbers, animated photographs, or property records). PDPL also categorizes sensitive data to include not only health, biometric, and genetic information but also tribal origin and parentage, highlighting cultural and national significance

Rights of Individuals: Comparative Scope and Depth

One of GDPR’s defining features is its comprehensive rights framework for data subjects. Individuals are empowered to access their data, request correction or deletion, limit processing, and move their data between providers (data portability). The regulation also grants individuals the right to object to automated decision-making and profiling.

PDPL introduces a more modest but functionally relevant set of rights:

• Right to know how personal data is used
• Right to access or receive a copy
• Right to request corrections or deletions

While this structure covers basic transparency and redress, it currently lacks explicit recognition of data portability, automated processing, or profiling objections. These may be introduced through regulatory updates as the framework matures under the forthcoming oversight of the National Data Management Office (NDMO).

Consent and Legal Basis for Processing

Consent is a foundational requirement in both laws, but their treatment differs in scope and flexibility.

Under GDPR, six legal bases exist for processing personal data. These include:

• Consent
• Contractual necessity
• Compliance with legal obligations
• Vital interests
• Public tasks
• Legitimate interests

This model provides organizations with flexibility depending on the nature of their engagement with individuals.

Conversely, PDPL places greater reliance on prior approval (i.e., explicit consent). While it does recognize public interest, health needs, and legal obligations for public entities as alternative grounds, private-sector processing is typically contingent on obtaining direct consent from the data subject.

This divergence has major operational consequences. In the EU, for instance, an e-commerce business may rely on legitimate interests to track behavior for analytics. In Saudi Arabia, similar activities would likely require explicit consent and detailed disclosures in the privacy policy.

Data Transfers and Cross-Border Controls

One of the most pronounced differences between GDPR and PDPL lies in the regulation of international data transfers.

GDPR permits data transfers to third countries only if adequate protections are in place. These can include adequacy decisions, binding corporate rules, or standard contractual clauses.

PDPL adopts a much stricter position: international transfers of personal data are prohibited by default, unless:

• The transfer preserves vital interests
• It serves national interests
• The controller secures approval from SDAIA

This framework reflects a broader policy of data localization, placing Saudi Arabia among jurisdictions that view cross-border transfers as potential risks to national digital sovereignty.

Enforcement and Supervisory Models

GDPR delegates enforcement to independent supervisory authorities in each member state, coordinated through the European Data Protection Board. Controllers and processors are expected to maintain open communication with these authorities, especially in the event of data breaches.

Under PDPL, enforcement currently resides with SDAIA, though long-term responsibility is expected to shift to the NDMO. The regulator holds significant authority, including the power to request documents, perform audits, and issue penalties.

The penalty structures also differ. GDPR imposes administrative fines of up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover. PDPL sets maximum fines of SAR 3 million (~€750,000) and up to two years’ imprisonment for serious offenses, particularly for intentional data misuse or unauthorized cross-border transfers.

Privacy by Design, Impact Assessments, and Record-Keeping

GDPR embeds the concept of privacy by design and default, requiring organizations to integrate data protection measures from the outset of any processing activity. It also mandates Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) for high-risk activities, helping organizations proactively mitigate privacy threats.

PDPL includes similar obligations, although the regulatory language is less prescriptive. Controllers must assess risks associated with personal data handling, particularly for services accessible to the public. Specific DPIA formats and thresholds are expected to be detailed further in implementing regulations.

Both laws require organizations to maintain comprehensive records of processing activities, including the purposes, categories of data, retention periods, and security safeguards.

Practical Implications for Organizations

Organizations working under both GDPR and PDPL must accommodate significant structural, procedural, and cultural differences. Some actionable insights include:

• Consent Infrastructure: Align consent mechanisms with PDPL’s stricter requirements while preserving GDPR’s transparency obligations.
• Data Transfer Controls: Design internal data governance to limit unnecessary cross-border flows where PDPL applies.
• Breach Notification Procedures: Establish dual timelines (72 hours for GDPR; immediate reporting for PDPL where harm is likely).
• Privacy Documentation: Maintain up-to-date records, DPIAs, and clear privacy policies that satisfy both jurisdictions’ mandates.

DPO and Compliance Officers: Designate qualified staff with knowledge of each law’s respective enforcement expectations.