
Privacy notice requirements: findable under UK GDPR
At a glance
UK-10CriticalUK GDPR Arts. 12(1) and 13; penalties in Art. 83(5)(b) and DPA 2018 s. 157
Peeky looks for a privacy notice that exists, opens, matches the language of the site and is easy to reach from any page.
Last checked against the source:
The rule
Article 12(1) of the UK GDPR says the controller “shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in Articles 13 and 14 and any communication made under or by virtue of Articles 15 to 22D and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child.”
Article 13(1) sets what must be provided when personal data is collected from the person it concerns: the identity and contact details of the controller, the contact details of the data protection officer where there is one, and the purposes of the processing together with its legal basis. The rest of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 cover recipients, transfers, retention, the person’s rights and the right to complain. Article 13 requires this “at the time when personal data are obtained”.
Two things about the text are worth knowing. First, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has changed it: the legislation.gov.uk versions of Articles 12 and 13 show amendments that took effect on 5 February 2026, and Article 13 shows further changes on 19 June and 30 September 2026, mainly about complaints and the name of the regulator. A policy drafted before those dates may need its complaints paragraph looked at again. Second, the UK GDPR does not use the words “privacy policy” or say where a notice goes on a website. This check is about whether the information can be found, and leaves its content to UK-07.
The ICO’s guidance is the closest thing to a rule for websites. It says the UK GDPR requires you to “provide” the information in an “easily accessible form”. Putting it on a website is accepted (“this is often how organisations deliver privacy information”), but “you must proactively make individuals aware of this information and you need to give them an easy way to access it. Simply putting it on your website, in case people happen to look there, is not enough.” The ICO adds a notice at the top of the page: because of the Data (Use and Access) Act, the guidance is under review and may change.
The ICO’s advice for small organisations is more concrete. A company that holds personal data, “which is generally any small business, charity or group that has information about people such as their names and email addresses”, needs a privacy notice, and needs one on its website “if that’s mainly how your clients and customers find you”. Its example is a cake maker whose notice link is “immediately visible on the contact form page”.
Penalties follow the rights provisions. Article 83(5)(b) of the UK GDPR places “the data subjects’ rights pursuant to Articles 12 to 21” in the upper tier, a list the legislation.gov.uk text shows extended on 5 February 2026 for the Act’s automated decision-making provisions. Section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018 sets the higher maximum at 17.5 million pounds or 4% of worldwide annual turnover for an undertaking, whichever is higher, against 8.7 million pounds or 2% for the standard maximum.
The ICO decisions listed for this article concern clarity and timing more than reachability. TikTok, covered below, is about clarity. In the Bounty penalty, people who signed up on paper could not see the privacy policy when they gave their details, and in the Experian and Clearview cases the information was never given to many of the people concerned. The Italian and French decisions in EU-09 show how the same wording has been applied to missing and scattered notices elsewhere, though they do not bind the UK.
What PeekWell checks and how
UK-10 asks one question: can a visitor reach a privacy notice from any page without hunting? The scan answers it from the pages it opened, not from what the site says about itself.
The scan is automated and looks at the same things as EU-09. It looks through the footer and menus of your public pages for a link to a privacy notice, checks that the link opens, and notes how far the notice sits from each page and which language it’s in. It flags a missing link, a link that doesn’t open, a notice buried too deep, and a notice in a different language from the site. Neither the UK GDPR nor the ICO says how many clicks is too many.
The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited, and the members area when you give it a sign-in. It doesn’t port-scan, try to get in where it isn’t allowed, run any security test or open addresses nobody linked to. It checks that a notice can be found and opens, and doesn’t judge whether it’s complete or accurate. That’s UK-07 and UK-06. A Passed means the expected behaviour was observed on the pages scanned. It doesn’t say the site complies.
Why it matters for a company
A missing or hidden notice is easy for a regulator to see, because it can be checked from a browser. The ICO’s guidance makes the standard plain: being on the website is not enough if people are unlikely to notice it, and the information is due when the details are collected.
The TikTok decision shows what happens when information exists but is not clear. The ICO’s own summary says the company “failed to provide users with clear information about how their data was being collected, used and shared meaning users (especially children) were unlikely to be able to make informed decisions.” That sat alongside findings about children’s data and age checks, so the 12.7 million pound penalty is not for transparency alone, and the page does not say which articles each finding rested on. TikTok appealed and then withdrew, which makes the 2023 notice final.
For a company the practical consequences are of three kinds. The information is due at the time of collection, so a notice added later does not cover the period before. A complaint about something else can lead a regulator to look at the website as a whole. And with the Data (Use and Access) Act in force, the text and the ICO’s guidance are both moving, so an old notice is more likely to be out of step.
Smaller companies and larger companies
The rule has no size threshold, and the ICO’s small-organisation pages are written for sole traders as much as for groups. What differs is how the gap appears.
In a small company the site is usually a template or a hosted builder. The notice was produced once, perhaps with the ICO’s own generator, and linked from the home page footer. Then the site changes: a campaign landing page, a booking form added by a freelancer, a shop plug-in with its own checkout. Each collects names and emails, and none links the notice. Nobody’s job is to check. The ICO’s advice asks for a link on the contact form page itself, which is an easy step to miss.
In a larger company the pieces multiply: brands, regional sites, microsites, apps and sign-up flows built by different teams. A group notice may be long and general, with key points far down the page, which is where the TikTok finding about clarity becomes relevant. Scale also changes the stakes, since the higher maximum is tied to turnover.
Enforcement cases
Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

Larger companies
TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited and TikTok Inc
The ICO found that TikTok failed to provide users with clear information about how their data was being collected, used and shared, so users, especially children, were unlikely to be able to make informed decisions. The same penalty notice covered children's data and age checks. TikTok dropped its appeal, and the ICO announced on 24 September 2026 that the penalty notice is final.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited and TikTok IncBounty (UK) Limited
People who joined the parenting club on paper cards, including at hospital bedsides, had no access to its privacy policy when they gave their details. The company said they got a link to it by email shortly afterwards, and the ICO said the information should be given at the point of collection. The penalty, under the Data Protection Act 1998, also covers sharing more than 34 million records with 39 organisations.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about Bounty (UK) LimitedExperian Limited
The tribunal found that about 5.3 million people whose data Experian used for direct marketing had not been given an Article 14 privacy notice, and that cost did not make telling them disproportionate effort. It required notices for data taken from public sources such as the open electoral register, and set aside other parts of the ICO's 2020 notice. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the ICO's further appeal in 2024.
Read the First-tier Tribunal, on appeal from an ICO enforcement notice publication about Experian LimitedClearview AI Inc
The ICO found Clearview gave people none of the Article 14 information about collecting their images from the internet, and that the only way to get it was to contact Clearview and ask. Clearview contests the penalty. In October 2025 the Upper Tribunal held the ICO had jurisdiction and sent the case back to the First-tier Tribunal.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about Clearview AI IncHome Office
For its pilot of GPS tagging of people on immigration bail, the ICO found the Home Office had not shown that its privacy information was easy to access and complete under Articles 12 and 13. It was spread over three documents, including a high-level departmental notice, without being set out clearly in one place or in a single document with clear links to the others.
Read the ICO (UK) publication about Home Office
Smaller companies
Doorstep Dispensaree Limited
The First-tier Tribunal recorded that the pharmacy did not provide people with the information Articles 13 and 14 require, and that it accepted its data protection policies, particularly its privacy notice, were inadequate. Documents it sent the ICO in 2019 were still inadequate. The penalty was imposed mainly for how paper records were stored and destroyed.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom), First-tier Tribunal on appeal publication about Doorstep Dispensaree LimitedEasylife Limited
The ICO found the catalogue company profiled customers for likely health conditions and marketed to them by phone, relying on a short section of its privacy policy that no customer would have understood to cover that use. It found this contrary to Article 13(1)(c) and the transparency principle. In March 2023 the ICO agreed to reduce the penalty while its findings stood.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about Easylife Limited
How to fix it
The ICO’s advice is to make the notice “freely available and easy to access” and to make sure people know where to find it, whether it is “in a poster, a web page or a pop-up”. These steps put that in place on most sites and site builders.
- List every public page type and form. Home, product pages, blog, booking and checkout, landing pages and any microsite. Anything with its own template needs its own check.
- Put one link in the shared footer. Add a link labelled “Privacy notice” or “Privacy policy” to the footer template so every page type inherits it. Keep it at normal size and contrast, and do not hide it in a menu that opens only on small screens.
- Add a link beside every form. Next to each contact form, newsletter box or booking form, add a short line with a link to the notice, so people see it before they start typing. That is the ICO’s own example.
- Match the language. If a page is in Welsh, French or Polish, link a notice in that language. Where you run several language versions, give each a link to the right one.
- Check that the link opens. Open it in a private window, on a phone and on a computer. A notice that returns an error, redirects to the home page or needs a sign-in does not count.
- Review the complaints paragraph. The amendments from 19 June and 30 September 2026 touch the complaints wording in Article 13. Ask whoever maintains the notice to check it against the current text.
- Re-scan. Run a scan again. The finding should disappear once each page type shows a working link close at hand, in the site’s language.
<footer>
<a href="/privacy/">Privacy notice</a>
</footer>
What goes inside the notice is a separate question, and UK-07 covers the Article 13 list. Whether a setup meets the ICO’s view is for your legal adviser, and Peeky reports only what it sees.
Questions
Does a UK website need a privacy policy?
If the business holds personal data, yes. The ICO's advice for small organisations says any company holding things like names and email addresses needs a privacy notice, and that it needs one on its website if that is mainly how customers find it. A contact form or a newsletter sign-up is enough to bring a site in.
What is the difference between a privacy notice and a privacy policy?
None that matters for the rule. The UK GDPR talks about the information in Articles 13 and 14, and the ICO calls it privacy information or a privacy notice. Websites usually label the page Privacy policy or Privacy notice, and either name is fine so long as visitors can find it.
Where should the privacy notice go on a website?
Somewhere people will see it before they hand over their details. The ICO says putting it on the website is acceptable, but you must proactively make people aware of it, and simply putting it there in case people happen to look is not enough. Its own example for a small business links the notice on the contact form page itself.
What does Article 13 of the UK GDPR require?
Who you are, why you use the data and on what legal basis, who receives it and, in paragraph 2, how long you keep it and what rights people have. It must be given when the data is collected. The rule has the wording, including the amendments the Data (Use and Access) Act has made.
How does Peeky check for a missing privacy notice?
Peeky looks for the policy link on the public pages it visits, opens it, and checks that the policy is easy to reach and written in the site's language. It does not port-scan, try to get in where it isn't allowed or run any security test. How a scan works has the full path.
Filed with
The rule
UK GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as it forms part of UK law), Arts. 12(1), 13 and 83(5)(b)
Read the rule (UK GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as it forms part of UK law), Arts. 12(1), 13 and 83(5)(b))A case
TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited and TikTok Inc
Read the decision (TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited and TikTok Inc)Sources
The law
- UK GDPR, Article 12 (legislation.gov.uk, revised version showing Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 amendments from 5 February 2026)
- UK GDPR, Article 13 (legislation.gov.uk, revised version showing amendments from 5 February, 19 June and 30 September 2026)
- UK GDPR, Article 14 (legislation.gov.uk, revised version)
- UK GDPR, Article 5 (principles, including transparency) (legislation.gov.uk)
- UK GDPR, Article 83 (legislation.gov.uk)
- Data Protection Act 2018, section 157: maximum amount of penalty (legislation.gov.uk)
Guidance
- ICO, When should we provide privacy information? (guidance under review after the Data (Use and Access) Act)
- ICO, What methods can we use to provide privacy information?
- ICO, How should we draft our privacy information?
- ICO, Cookies and privacy notices in detail (advice for small organisations)
- ICO, How to write a privacy notice and what goes in it (advice for small organisations)
- ICO, Create your own privacy notice (advice for small organisations)
- ICO, Principle (a): lawfulness, fairness and transparency
Decisions and cases
- ICO, TikTok withdraws two appeals in children's privacy action and accepts £12.7m fine, 24 September 2026
- First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), Doorstep Dispensaree Limited v The Information Commissioner, EA/2020/0065/V, decision dated 9 August 2021
- ICO, Easylife Limited monetary penalty notice (Article 5(1)(a)), 4 October 2022
- ICO, ICO reaches agreement with Easylife Ltd, March 2023 (Internet Archive copy)
- ICO, Bounty (UK) Limited monetary penalty notice, 9 April 2019 (UK Government Web Archive copy)
- First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), Experian Limited v The Information Commissioner, EA/2020/0317, [2023] UKFTT 132 (GRC)
- Upper Tribunal, The Information Commissioner v Experian Limited (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)
- ICO, statement on Upper Tribunal ruling in the Experian case, 24 April 2024, updated 24 May 2024
- ICO, Clearview AI Inc monetary penalty notice, 18 May 2022
- ICO, UK Upper Tribunal hands down judgment on Clearview AI Inc, 8 October 2025
- ICO, enforcement notice to the Home Office on the GPS tagging pilot, 28 February 2024
- ICO, warning to the Home Office on future GPS tagging, 28 February 2024
- ICO, enforcement action: Home Office, March 2024
Last checked against the source:
For information only. Not legal advice.
