Carry out a data protection impact assessment for high-risk AI processing
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder ICO AI guidance, UK GDPR Article 35; ICO guidance, accountability and governance section
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Carry out a data protection impact assessment for high-risk AI processing is a legal requirement under the ICO AI guidance in the United Kingdom (UK GDPR Article 35; ICO guidance, accountability and governance section). Where AI processing of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to individuals, UK GDPR requires a DPIA before processing begins.
- Instrument
- ICO AI guidance
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- UK GDPR Article 35; ICO guidance, accountability and governance section
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer, Deployer / user organisation, Public authority / government body
- Evidence examples
- 1
- Framework mappings
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
- Controls that meet it
- 2
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Source-linked
What does it require?
Where AI processing of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to individuals, UK GDPR requires a DPIA before processing begins. The ICO treats most AI involving profiling, large-scale processing or novel technology as meeting this threshold.
Practical action
Use the ICO's DPIA template and add AI-specific sections on bias, explainability and human oversight.
Who does it apply to?
Controllers using personal data in AI where processing is likely high risk.
- Sectors
- Cross-sector / all sectors
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesProcessData protection officer · once per ai systemPrivacy and data-protection controls for AI
Serves 13 recorded duties · evidence: Data protection impact assessment for an AI system, AI data-flow and legal-basis record, Privacy notice section on AI use
DPIA with AI-specific sections before processing starts.
-
supportsProcessAI system owner · once per ai systemAI impact and fundamental-rights impact assessment
Serves 11 recorded duties · evidence: AI impact assessment, Impact assessment approval, Impact assessment procedure and template
Bias, explainability and oversight analysis reused in the DPIA.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)
Assessment · DOCX and XLSX · v5
- AI Impact Assessment
Assessment · DOCX and XLSX · v5
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v3
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Data protection impact assessment | report |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every United Kingdom duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Clause 6.1.4 AI system impact assessment | Original editorial mapping. | high |
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | MAP 5.1 | Impact assessment. | medium |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under ICO AI guidance (UK GDPR Article 35; ICO guidance, accountability and governance section).
Who must comply with this obligation?
Controllers using personal data in AI where processing is likely high risk.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Data protection impact assessment.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1.4 AI system impact assessment, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 MAP 5.1. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Privacy and data-protection controls for AI; AI impact and fundamental-rights impact assessment.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Use the ICO's DPIA template and add AI-specific sections on bias, explainability and human oversight.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Carry out a data protection impact assessment for high-risk AI processing (ICO AI guidance)” [AIPT-OBL-0077, verified 26 September 2026 by Bhaskar Bhatt]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0077 (accessed 27 October 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0077: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: Guidance on AI and data protection, Information Commissioner's Office, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence/guidance-on-ai-and-data-protection/.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_carryoutadataprotectioni,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Carry out a data protection impact assessment for high-risk AI processing (ICO AI guidance)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/uk-ico-dpia-for-ai}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/uk-ico-dpia-for-ai},
urldate = {2026-10-27},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 27 October 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment before deployment — EU AI Act, European Union
- Significant Data Fiduciaries must appoint a DPO and run impact assessments and audits — India DPDP Act, India
- Conduct a data protection impact assessment for high-risk processing using new technologies — UAE PDPL, United Arab Emirates
- Deployers must complete impact assessments for high-risk AI — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Map context, intended use and potential impacts (Map) — NIST AI RMF, United States (voluntary)
- Operators of high-impact AI should assess its impact on fundamental rights before use — AI Basic Act, South Korea (voluntary)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.