Local-only learningOfficial-source trailReviewed 30 Aug 2026

SCENARIO S02 · PROCESSORS & EVIDENCE

A processor keeps using marketing data after the person withdraws consent. What should the fiduciary check?

IN PLAIN ENGLISH

Why you are seeing this step

This field note uses one realistic decision to separate the official source, an editorial interpretation, a practical option, evidence to keep, and any uncertainty that still depends on your facts.

Educational only, not legal advice. Source status is dated 13 May 2027; inspect the official links below before relying on it.

BEST NEXT STEP

Verify that the withdrawal caused documented cessation instructions and completion across processors.

Trace the withdrawal from the user control to every affected instruction, while separately documenting any processing required or authorised without consent.

WHY THE OTHER INSTINCTS MISS

Best answer

Verify that the withdrawal caused documented cessation instructions and completion across processors.

Correct. Act section 6(6), not section 8 alone, specifically addresses causing processors to cease consent-based processing within a reasonable time.

Option 2

Close the ticket once the first-party marketing list is updated.

That misses processing performed on the fiduciary’s behalf.

Option 3

Assume the processor owns the withdrawal decision.

The fiduciary remains responsible for the consent-based processing chain; a processor does not inherit an independent decision by default.

BUILD THIS EVIDENCE

Processor instruction, affected-system list, exception rationale and completion timestamp.

This artefact supports review. It does not certify compliance or replace advice on your facts.

Guidance type
legal requirement
Pinpoint
Act s. 6(4)–(6); G.S.R. 843(E)
Reviewed
2026-08-30
Change note
Status and pinpoint reviewed against the official Act, final Rules, commencement notification and corrigendum for this educational website.

OFFICIAL SOURCE TRAIL