US Data Protection Laws vs GDPR: A Practical Comparison for Global Businesses
-min.png)
With the continuous development of digital solutions, data knows no borders. However, privacy laws certainly do. For businesses operating across the Atlantic, understanding US data protection laws vs GDPR is no longer optional. Data privacy defines global trust and ensures that organizations avoid penalties, while smooth data operations take place. While the GDPR provides a unified, rights-based framework for all EU citizens, US privacy law is a complex.
As data flows become increasingly global, organizations must grasp not just the legal contrasts (framed as GDPR vs US law or GDPR vs CCPA) but also the practical business implications that come with operating under both regimes. In this article, we will cover exactly the same aspect on what the key differentiating factors between US data protection laws vs GDPR, and how companies can stay compliant in both regimes.
Before diving deeper, here’s a quick comparison of US data protection laws vs GDPR to help set the stage.
Although some jurisdictions have GDPR-inspired laws, such as the California GDPR equivalent under the CCPA/CPRA, there’s still no GDPR equivalent in other countries that matches its comprehensive approach.
The GDPR’s scope is remarkably broad. Any controller or processor that handles the personal data of individuals in the EU or EEA must comply, regardless of whether the organisation has a physical presence in that region. U.S. privacy law is narrower: it tends to apply based on the type of data or the sector. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) covers health information; the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) covers financial institutions; and COPPA governs online services directed at children. State laws like California’s CCPA/CPRA apply to for‑profit entities that collect personal information of state residents and meet revenue or data‑volume thresholds.
Under the GDPR, personal data refers to any piece of information that can directly or indirectly identify a living individual. This may include names, ID numbers, location details, or other attributes connected to someone’s physical, psychological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social characteristics. The regulation also classifies certain types of data, such as those revealing racial or ethnic background, health information, biometric or genetic identifiers, sexual orientation, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, and trade union affiliations, as special categories of personal data. These categories are afforded an additional layer of protection and may only be processed under limited, legally defined circumstances.
In contrast, U.S. state privacy laws take a narrower view of what qualifies as personal information. They generally define it as any data that identifies, relates to, describes, or could reasonably be linked to a specific consumer or household. They generally exclude publicly available information and de‑identified or aggregated data. Sensitive personal information under the CPRA includes items such as social security numbers, precise geolocation, racial origin, religious beliefs, union membership, health data, and genetic or biometric data. Because definitions differ, an identifier that is “personal data” in the EU may not be treated as such under certain U.S. laws, which can complicate multinational compliance.
A major point of divergence between US Data Protection Laws vs GDPR lies in how each framework approaches consent. The GDPR operates on clear legal bases for processing data, while most US laws depend on implied or opt-out consent.
As per the GDPR organisations must identify a lawful basis for each data processing activity. Article 6 lists six bases: consent, performance of a contract, compliance with a legal obligation, protection of vital interests, performance of a task carried out in the public interest, and legitimate interests.
For special categories of data, Article 9 generally demands explicit consent or another narrow exemption (e.g., vital interests in emergencies, legal claims, or substantial public interest). The burden is on controllers to document these bases and demonstrate compliance. Moreover, consent under GDPR must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous; pre‑ticked boxes and bundled consents are not valid.
Most U.S. privacy laws operate through opt‑out models rather than lawful bases. The CCPA (often called as California GDPR equivalent) and similar state laws allow businesses to collect and process personal information by default, but require them to provide clear notice and give consumers the right to opt out of the sale or sharing of their data. Under California law, businesses must include a “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” link and cannot discriminate against consumers for exercising this right.
Some state laws also give consumers the right to restrict the use of sensitive personal data. Sectoral statutes may impose opt‑in requirements for sensitive contexts: COPPA requires verifiable parental consent before collecting data from children under 13, and HIPAA generally requires patient authorization for uses beyond treatment and operations.
For marketers, GDPR’s consent rules demand clear opt-ins and transparent privacy notices. Meanwhile, US businesses often rely on notice-and-choice frameworks. HR teams handling EU data must apply stricter consent and data minimization principles when processing employee information.
The GDPR grants individuals eight core rights: the right to be informed, right of access, right to rectification, right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”), right to restrict processing, right to data portability, right to object, and right not to be subject to automated decision‑making including profiling. Controllers must respond to requests without undue delay and at the latest within one month, with a two‑month extension for complex cases. Organisations cannot charge fees unless requests are manifestly unfounded or excessive.
U.S. state privacy laws vary, but many provide a consistent set of consumer rights. Under the CCPA/CPRA, consumers have the right to know what personal information is collected and to whom it is sold or shared, access that information, correct inaccuracies, delete their data, obtain portability of personal data, opt out of sale or sharing, and not be discriminated against for exercising their rights.
Several states extend these rights to opt out of targeted advertising, profiling, or certain automated decision‑making. Some laws include a right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information. Response timelines are typically 45 days, with the possibility of a 45‑day extension. Unlike GDPR, many U.S. laws limit the number of requests per year and allow businesses to verify the requester’s identity before responding.
GDPR requires organisations to verify the identity of individuals making requests and to respond within one month. Failure to comply can lead to fines. U.S. laws generally allow 45 days to respond, and some states permit one additional 45‑day extension. The CCPA allows businesses to deny unfounded requests and restricts consumers to two requests per year.
GDPR enforcement is overseen by data protection authorities in each EU member state, coordinated by the European Data Protection Board. Serious infringements, such as processing without a lawful basis or violating data subject rights, can result in fines of up to €20 million or 4 % of the controller’s worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. Supervisory authorities can also issue reprimands, order processing suspensions, and require organisations to implement corrective measures.
In the U.S., enforcement is fractured. Federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) enforce sectoral laws like COPPA and HIPAA. State attorneys general enforce state privacy statutes and can bring civil actions. The major difference between GDPR vs CCPA is that under the CCPA (California GDPR equivalent) , the maximum civil penalty is $2,500 per non‑intentional violation and $7,500 for intentional violations, with no cap on total fines. The law also gives businesses 30 days to cure a violation. HIPAA imposes tiered penalties that can reach $1.5 million annually, while the GLBA can result in fines up to $100,000 per violation.
GDPR enables individuals to seek compensation for material or non‑material damage and allows not‑for‑profit bodies to bring collective claims. However, most litigation has been through regulatory action. U.S. laws, by contrast, provide more explicit avenues for private suits. Under the CCPA, consumers may sue companies that experience unauthorised access or disclosure of personal information due to a security lapse and may recover $750 per consumer per incident. Class actions are happening every day, and plaintiffs’ lawyers are actively monitoring data breaches. Organisations operating in the U.S. must therefore account for both regulatory fines and civil litigation.
For multinational organizations, transferring data between regions remains one of the biggest challenges. While GDPR provides precise mechanisms for cross border data transfer, the US lacks an equivalent federal framework, relying instead on sectoral or contractual safeguards.
The GDPR restricts transferring personal data outside the EEA unless the destination ensures an adequate level of protection. Transfers can occur if the European Commission has issued an adequacy decision (e.g., for countries like Canada, Japan, or the U.S., for certified organisations under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework). In the absence of adequacy, organisations may rely on Standard Contractual Clauses or Binding Corporate Rules as appropriate safeguards. These instruments require parties to implement technical and organisational measures, address onward transfers, and provide data subjects with enforceable rights.
U.S. laws generally do not impose geographic restrictions on transferring personal data; instead, they emphasise the nature of the data and the industry sector. Companies are free to export data abroad as long as they comply with applicable sectoral regulations, but once personal data leaves the U.S., those rules continue to apply. Organisations wishing to receive EU data must therefore adopt mechanisms like the Data Privacy Framework, enter into SCCs, or adopt binding rules. Because there is no overarching federal privacy law, cross‑border compliance requires contractual diligence and robust vendor management.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) applies to financial institutions and mandates two major rules: the Safeguards Rule, which requires companies to develop written security programs, perform risk assessments, and train employees, and the Financial Privacy Rule, which obliges institutions to disclose privacy practices and provide consumers with opt‑out options.
Penalties for non‑compliance can reach $100,000 per violation, and individuals may face criminal liability. GDPR’s approach is broader and sector‑agnostic; it imposes accountability, privacy by design, data minimisation, and risk‑based security measures on all data controllers. Financial firms handling EU data must therefore align their GLBA programs with GDPR’s more stringent documentation, governance, and legal basis requirements.
HIPAA governs protected health information (PHI) in the United States and consists of the Privacy Rule, Security Rule, and Breach Notification Rule. It requires covered entities and business associates to implement administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, and to notify affected individuals and HHS within 60 days of breaches affecting 500+ individuals. HIPAA does not impose a general opt‑in requirement; health data may be used for treatment and operations without consent, but patient authorisation is needed for marketing and other purposes. Fines can reach $1.5 million annually.
From a GDPR vs HIPAA perspective, the GDPR imposes stricter requirements. Any health data or other special category data requires a lawful basis and generally explicit consent unless an exemption applies. GDPR also grants individuals the right to erasure and data portability, rights absent from HIPAA, and mandates breach notification to the supervisory authority within 72 hours. Organisations processing health data in both jurisdictions must therefore integrate GDPR’s broader rights and shorter notification timelines into their incident response playbooks.
The U.S. Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) applies to websites and online services directed at children under 13 and requires verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information. A proposed COPPA 2.0 may extend coverage to teenagers aged 12–17. By contrast, the GDPR defines a child as under 16 (member states may lower the age to 13) and requires that processing of a child’s data is lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by a parent. The UK GDPR sets the age of consent at 13. This divergence means U.S. services aimed at teenagers must monitor evolving COPPA rules while EU‑facing services must verify parental consent for users under the relevant age threshold.
For organizations managing both EU and US consumer data, the challenge lies in balancing two very different frameworks. The following best practices help companies establish unified policies that meet the expectations of both systems.
Operating across the Atlantic demands a strong privacy management program. Organisations should appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) (internally or via an outsourced DPO) who understands both GDPR and U.S. requirements. A compliance audit can map data flows, identify applicable laws, and reveal gaps. Policies should clearly assign responsibilities, document legal bases, maintain records of processing, and define escalation channels.
Implement unified consent and preference management tools that can display GDPR‑compliant cookie banners in the EU, honour “Do Not Sell or Share” requests in the U.S., and maintain opt‑out lists. Centralising this information allows marketing teams to respect user choices across channels and jurisdictions.
GDPR requires organisations to collect only the personal data necessary for specific purposes and to retain it only as long as needed. U.S. laws do not explicitly impose data minimisation requirements, but reducing data volumes still mitigates risk.
Incident response must account for different notification timelines.
A apt cybersecurity incident response plan must have clear incident classification, cross‑border reporting protocols, and coordinated messaging to regulators, customers, and employees.
Have a clear understanding of where EU personal data enters your systems, which teams use it, and how it is stored. A data inventory is essential for both GDPR compliance and U.S. state disclosure requirements.
For each EU data processing activity, determine the appropriate lawful basis under GDPR. Document this analysis and ensure that U.S. processing aligns with opt‑out obligations.
Ensure your privacy notices meet GDPR’s information requirements and state law disclosure obligations. Include explanations of data categories, purposes, legal bases, sharing practices, and user rights.
Deploy mechanisms to capture explicit consent where required (e.g., special categories, children) and provide straightforward opt‑out links for sale or targeted advertising. Use preference centres to allow granular choices.
Establish workflows for receiving, verifying, and responding to data subject requests within the required timelines as per the GDPR Data Subject Rights.
If you transfer EU personal data to the U.S., sign Standard Contractual Clauses or join the EU‑U.S. Data Privacy Framework. Assess onward transfers to vendors and ensure contractual assurances.
Implement technical safeguards such as encryption, multi‑factor authentication, and continuous monitoring. Document these measures to satisfy both GDPR’s accountability principle and U.S. laws.
Conduct regular training on GDPR and U.S. privacy obligations. Promote privacy by design in product development and marketing campaigns.
Perform periodic compliance audits and vendor risk assessments. Evaluate third‑party contracts to ensure they include the necessary clauses for GDPR and state law compliance.
Consider appointing an internal DPO or partnering with DPO Consulting through our outsourced DPO service. A privacy expert will monitor regulatory developments, conduct impact assessments, and act as a liaison with supervisory authorities.
Navigating the complexities of GDPR vs US privacy law can overwhelm organisations focused on growth. DPO Consulting offers bespoke services to help your business achieve and maintain compliance. Our team conducts thorough compliance audits, assists with cross‑border data transfer assessments, and provides outsourced DPO services for companies needing ongoing expertise without headcount. We design and implement consent management solutions that respect both opt‑in and opt‑out regimes and help create data inventories, retention policies, and incident response plans. Through tailored training and strategic guidance, we enable you to convert privacy compliance into a competitive advantage.
Get in touch with our experts today!
No. The U.S. does not have a comprehensive, omnibus privacy law akin to the GDPR. Instead, privacy regulation is sector‑specific and supplemented by state laws. Laws such as HIPAA, GLBA, and COPPA regulate specific data types, and states like California, Colorado, and Virginia have enacted consumer privacy statutes, but none match the GDPR’s breadth.
Yes, if a U.S. company processes personal data of individuals in the EU/EEA, it must comply with the GDPR’s extraterritorial rules. This includes determining lawful bases, respecting data subject rights, and ensuring cross‑border transfer safeguards. U.S. companies without EU users do not need GDPR compliance but must still adhere to applicable federal and state laws.
There is significant overlap: both regimes provide rights to access, deletion, data portability, and restriction (or opt‑out). GDPR goes further by giving individuals the right to rectification, objection, and not to be subject to automated decision‑making. U.S. state laws grant opt‑out rights for sale or targeted advertising and impose non‑discrimination obligations.
Under GDPR, international transfers require an adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards such as SCCs. The EU–U.S. Data Privacy Framework provides adequacy for certified organisations. U.S. laws rarely restrict outbound data flows but require adherence to sectoral rules.
GDPR violations can lead to fines up to €20 million or 4 % of global turnover. In the U.S., fines vary: the CCPA allows penalties of $2,500 per unintentional violation and $7,500 per intentional violation. HIPAA fines range up to $1.5 million per year. GLBA violations can cost $100,000 per breach. Private lawsuits may add additional costs.
Investing in GDPR compliance efforts can weigh heavily on large corporations as well as smaller to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Turning to an external resource or support can relieve the burden of an internal audit on businesses across the board and alleviate the strain on company finances, technological capabilities, and expertise.
External auditors and expert partners like DPO Consulting are well-positioned to help organizations effectively tackle the complex nature of GDPR audits. These trained professionals act as an extension of your team, helping to streamline audit processes, identify areas of improvement, implement necessary changes, and secure compliance with GDPR.
Entrusting the right partner provides the advantage of impartiality and adherence to industry standards and unlocks a wealth of resources such as industry-specific insights, resulting in unbiased assessments and compliance success. Working with DPO Consulting translates to valuable time saved and takes away the burden from in-house staff, while considerably reducing company costs.
GDPR and Compliance
Outsourced DPO & Representation
Training & Support
To give you 100% control over the design, together with Webflow project, you also get the Figma file. After the purchase, simply send us an email to and we will e happy to forward you the Figma file.
Yes, we know... it's easy to say it, but that's the fact. We did put a lot of thought into the template. Trend Trail was designed by an award-winning designer. Layouts you will find in our template are custom made to fit the industry after carefully made research.
We used our best practices to make sure your new website loads fast. All of the images are compressed to have as little size as possible. Whenever possible we used vector formats - the format made for the web.
Grained is optimized to offer a frictionless experience on every screen. No matter how you combine our sections, they will look good on desktop, tablet, and phone.
Both complex and simple animations are an inseparable element of modern website. We created our animations in a way that can be easily reused, even by Webflow beginners.
Our template is modular, meaning you can combine different sections as well as single elements, like buttons, images, etc. with each other without losing on consistency of the design. Long story short, different elements will always look good together.
On top of being modular, Grained was created using the best Webflow techniques, like: global Color Swatches, reusable classes, symbols and more.
Grained includes a blog, carrers and projects collections that are made on the powerful Webflow CMS. This will let you add new content extremely easily.
Grained Template comes with eCommerce set up, so you can start selling your services straight away.
To give you 100% control over the design, together with Webflow project, you also get the Figma file.
.svg)
