UK

UK GDPR: Joint Controllers

Joint Controllers [Art 26]

Rule: Where two or more controllers jointly determine the purposes and means of processing, they are joint controllers and must determine their respective responsibilities by transparent arrangement.

26.1 — Joint Controllership Test

Joint controllers exist when:

  1. Joint determination of purposes and means
  2. Participation in decision-making about processing
  3. Common purpose for processing (even if each has separate purposes too)

Examples of Joint Controllership

ScenarioJoint Controllers?
Two companies share CRM for joint marketing✅ Yes
Hospital and research institute jointly run study✅ Yes
Company uses processor for payroll❌ No (controller-processor)
Franchisees using franchisor’s centralized system✅ Likely yes
Social media plugin (Like button) on website✅ Yes (website + platform)
Companies sharing customer leads✅ Yes

Key question: Do both parties have a say in “why” (purpose) or “how” (means) of processing?

26.2 — Joint Controller Arrangement

Controllers must determine in a transparent manner:

RequirementDetail
Respective responsibilitiesWho does what (collection, storage, deletion, etc.)
GDPR obligationsWho handles data subject rights, breach notification, etc.
Relationship to data subjectsHow data subjects can exercise rights
FormWritten agreement recommended (not legally required)
Essence made availableSummary provided to data subjects

Required Content

At minimum, arrangement must cover:

  • Which controller does what processing operations
  • Who is contact point for data subjects
  • Who handles data subject rights requests
  • Who notifies breaches to ICO
  • Security responsibilities
  • Liability allocation (internal, not binding on data subjects)

26.3 — Data Subject Rights

Critical: Data subject may exercise rights against either or both joint controllers, regardless of internal arrangement.

RightData Subject Can Exercise Against…
AccessEither controller
ErasureEither controller
RectificationEither controller
All other rightsEither controller

Internal arrangements do not limit data subject rights.

26.4 — Essence Available to Data Subjects

Controllers must make essence of arrangement available to data subjects:

  • In privacy notice
  • On website
  • On request

“Essence” means:

  • Who the joint controllers are
  • How to contact each one
  • How responsibilities are divided
  • How to exercise rights

Not required: Full legal agreement text (can be internal).

Liability and Compensation [Art 82]

Internal ArrangementExternal Liability
May allocate liability between controllersData subject can claim against ANY controller for full damage
Can agree indemnity/contributionController who pays can recover from others

Key principle: Joint and several liability to data subjects. Internal cost allocation is separate matter.

Common Joint Controller Scenarios

1. Marketing Partnerships

Example: Two retailers share customer data for joint loyalty program.

Arrangement must specify:

  • Who collects data initially
  • Who sends marketing communications
  • Who handles opt-outs
  • How data is deleted when partnership ends

2. Social Media Plugins

Example: Website embeds Facebook Like button.

Joint controllers: Website + Facebook

Arrangement must specify:

  • What data is collected by plugin
  • Who is contact for privacy questions
  • How users can object to tracking

CJEU case law: Fashion ID (C-40/17) — website + Facebook are joint controllers for data collected by plugin.

3. Research Collaborations

Example: University and hospital jointly conduct clinical trial.

Arrangement must specify:

  • Who recruits participants
  • Who stores data
  • Who analyzes results
  • Who handles data subject rights
  • Data retention after study ends

4. Franchise Relationships

Example: Franchisor provides centralized booking system for franchisees.

May be joint controllers if:

  • Both determine purposes of processing
  • Franchisor has access to customer data
  • Both use data for own purposes

Arrangement must specify:

  • Who owns customer relationship
  • Who handles complaints
  • Who deletes data

Distinction from Processor Relationship

Joint ControllerProcessor
Determines purposes and meansOnly processes per controller’s instructions
Own purposes for processingNo own purposes
Joint liabilityController remains responsible
Art 26 appliesArt 28 applies (DPA required)

Example — Joint Controllers: Two companies share leads database for mutual benefit.

Example — Controller-Processor: Company uses Mailchimp to send newsletters.

Designation of Contact Point

Joint controllers may designate one controller as contact point:

  • For data subjects to exercise rights
  • For supervisory authority communications

BUT:

  • Does not change joint liability
  • Data subjects can still contact either controller
  • Designated contact must coordinate with other controller

Audit and Accountability

Joint controllers should:

  • Document the arrangement in writing
  • Review arrangement periodically
  • Maintain records of processing (Art 30)
  • Conduct joint DPIA if high risk (Art 35)
  • Coordinate breach response (Art 33-34)

ICO Guidance

ICO recommends:

  • Clear agreement — even if not legally required, put it in writing
  • Regular review — arrangements may change over time
  • Practical allocation — be specific about who does what
  • Data subject focus — ensure rights can be easily exercised

Citation

Article 26 — Joint controllers

Related ICO guidance: Data sharing: a code of practice

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 where applicable. This is not legal advice. Always refer to official sources for authoritative text.

llms.txt