Data:India - Revision history

Latorre Tallard Pablo at 22:02, 10 October 2026

2026-10-10T22:02:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 11 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''Words: 1911'''
	= Data Portability Rights =		= Data Portability Rights =
	<p style="text-align: justify;">Data portability rights entitle individuals to legally transfer their data from one data holder/processor to another in a structured, organized, and machine-readable format on a continuous basis. Commonly, data portability rights apply only to data that is digital and personal, and that is processed with consent or in the context of a contract performance (1). Additionally, data portability rights differentiate themselves from other data sharing approaches in that in them the personal data transfer is triggered by the individual’s initiative and not the data holder/processor’s (2).</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">Data portability rights entitle individuals to legally transfer their data from one data holder/processor to another in a structured, organized, and machine-readable format on a continuous basis. Commonly, data portability rights apply only to data that is digital and personal, and that is processed with consent or in the context of a contract performance (1). Additionally, data portability rights differentiate themselves from other data sharing approaches in that in them the personal data transfer is triggered by the individual’s initiative and not the data holder/processor’s (2).</p>

Davey Kate: /* References */

2026-10-09T07:06:20Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 9 October 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	(30) Lazarotto (n 22).<br>(31) Data Act (n 25), art 50.		(30) Lazarotto (n 22).<br>(31) Data Act (n 25), art 50.

	(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.		(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) https://financialservices.gov.in/account-aggregator-framework accessed 4 October 2026.

	(34) Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, “DPDP Act and Rules: A Ticking Compliance Timeline” (Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, 12 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.		(34) Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, “DPDP Act and Rules: A Ticking Compliance Timeline” (Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, 12 May 2026) google.com/url?q=https://www.lkslaw.com/insights/articles/dpdp-act-and-rules-a-ticking-compliance-timeline&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1791533165444212&usg=AOvVaw0UnGsQPiEAPPEtcWmOYxaR accessed 4 October 2026.

	(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India), Lok Sabha, Written Answer of the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs (Shri Harsh Malhotra) on the Draft Digital Competition Bill (19 August 2025).		(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India), Lok Sabha, Written Answer of the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs (Shri Harsh Malhotra) on the Draft Digital Competition Bill (19 August 2025).

Davey Kate: /* References */

2026-10-09T06:34:48Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 9 October 2026
Line 87:		Line 87:
	(29) [https://petsymposium.org/popets/2021/popets-2021-0051.php Syrmoudis Emmanuel & Others, “Data Portability between Online Services: An Empirical Analysis on the Effectiveness of GDPR Article 20” [2021] (3) Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 351.]		(29) [https://petsymposium.org/popets/2021/popets-2021-0051.php Syrmoudis Emmanuel & Others, “Data Portability between Online Services: An Empirical Analysis on the Effectiveness of GDPR Article 20” [2021] (3) Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 351.]

	(30) Lazarotto (n 22).~~<br>~~<br>(31) Data Act (n 25), art 50.		(30) Lazarotto (n 22).<br>(31) Data Act (n 25), art 50.

	(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.		(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.

Davey Kate: /* Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime */

2026-10-09T06:34:19Z

Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 9 October 2026
Line 25:		Line 25:
	<p style="text-align: justify;">While India does not provide individuals with a general data portability right, in terms of finance, its data portability system works quite well. As Khandelwal concludes India has seen, “a high success rate with interoperability and data portability in the financial sector” (32). As of March 2026, “more than 2.88 billion financial accounts are enabled to share data on Account Aggregator, 284.6 million accounts have been linked by users to the Account Aggregator framework” (33). Yet, Khandelwal says this kind of success rate could be hard to replicate on a more complicated platform.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">While India does not provide individuals with a general data portability right, in terms of finance, its data portability system works quite well. As Khandelwal concludes India has seen, “a high success rate with interoperability and data portability in the financial sector” (32). As of March 2026, “more than 2.88 billion financial accounts are enabled to share data on Account Aggregator, 284.6 million accounts have been linked by users to the Account Aggregator framework” (33). Yet, Khandelwal says this kind of success rate could be hard to replicate on a more complicated platform.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">How do these frameworks compare? Both frameworks have a general data protection regime but only the European Union specifically calls out portability. In addition, it’s worth noting that India’s DPDPA only becomes fully enforceable in May 2027. There is a proposal in India to move this up to November 2026, but it has yet to be adopted (34). In addition, the European Union’s DMA pushes portability on the largest platforms (Article 6(9) and India’s DCB would do the same, however, the bill has been paused awaiting a market study) (35).</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">How do these frameworks compare? Both frameworks have a general data protection regime but only the European Union specifically calls out portability. In addition, it’s worth noting that India’s DPDPA only becomes fully enforceable in May 2027. There is a proposal in India to move this up to November 2026, but it has yet to be adopted (34). In addition, the European Union’s DMA pushes portability on the largest platforms (Article 6(9) and India’s DCB would do the same, however, the bill has been paused awaiting a market study) (35).</p>
	India has no Data Act equivalent. Although India never officially explained why it dropped the general right to data portability from the final DPDPA nor why ~~its~~ taking a sectoral approach, Khandelwal considers that India may be following Australia’s model of going by sector rather than providing one general right like the GDPR. Like Australia’s Consumer Data Right model, India may be attempting the same sectoral approach to make the compliance costs smaller for companies (36). It is worth noting that the DPDPA does refer to an “interoperable platform” which makes it plausible that portability was intended at some stage in India (37).<p style="text-align: justify;">What’s the ultimate outcome of the law? The two systems pursue similar goals with different approaches. With the GDPR and Data Act, the European Union provides a broad right that is enforceable. However, people are rarely able to use this effectively because the European Union lacks the technical infrastructure to let users transfer their data easily between data holders. India has the technical infrastructure for individuals to request their financial data easily including interoperability, but mainly in the financial sector. It does not offer any broad right to individuals like the GDPR in terms of social media platforms, for example. It is interesting that both systems have what the other needs: the European Union has the broad right, but not the technical ability to allow individuals to effectively use it, while India has the necessary technical infrastructure, but not the broad right.</p>		India has no Data Act equivalent. Although India never officially explained why it dropped the general right to data portability from the final DPDPA nor why it's taking a sectoral approach, Khandelwal considers that India may be following Australia’s model of going by sector rather than providing one general right like the GDPR. Like Australia’s Consumer Data Right model, India may be attempting the same sectoral approach to make the compliance costs smaller for companies (36). It is worth noting that the DPDPA does refer to an “interoperable platform” which makes it plausible that portability was intended at some stage in India (37).<p style="text-align: justify;">What’s the ultimate outcome of the law? The two systems pursue similar goals with different approaches. With the GDPR and Data Act, the European Union provides a broad right that is enforceable. However, people are rarely able to use this effectively because the European Union lacks the technical infrastructure to let users transfer their data easily between data holders. India has the technical infrastructure for individuals to request their financial data easily including interoperability, but mainly in the financial sector. It does not offer any broad right to individuals like the GDPR in terms of social media platforms, for example. It is interesting that both systems have what the other needs: the European Union has the broad right, but not the technical ability to allow individuals to effectively use it, while India has the necessary technical infrastructure, but not the broad right.</p>

	= References =		= References =

Davey Kate: /* References */

2026-10-09T06:33:35Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 9 October 2026
Line 95:		Line 95:
	(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India), Lok Sabha, Written Answer of the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs (Shri Harsh Malhotra) on the Draft Digital Competition Bill (19 August 2025).		(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India), Lok Sabha, Written Answer of the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs (Shri Harsh Malhotra) on the Draft Digital Competition Bill (19 August 2025).

	(36) Khandelwal (n 9); ACCC (n 5).		(36) Vrabec, Bansal and Gupta (n 4); Khandelwal (n 9); ACCC (n 5).

	(37) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6), s 2(g).		(37) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6), s 2(g).

Davey Kate: /* Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime */

2026-10-09T06:32:05Z

Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:32, 9 October 2026
Line 25:		Line 25:
	<p style="text-align: justify;">While India does not provide individuals with a general data portability right, in terms of finance, its data portability system works quite well. As Khandelwal concludes India has seen, “a high success rate with interoperability and data portability in the financial sector” (32). As of March 2026, “more than 2.88 billion financial accounts are enabled to share data on Account Aggregator, 284.6 million accounts have been linked by users to the Account Aggregator framework” (33). Yet, Khandelwal says this kind of success rate could be hard to replicate on a more complicated platform.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">While India does not provide individuals with a general data portability right, in terms of finance, its data portability system works quite well. As Khandelwal concludes India has seen, “a high success rate with interoperability and data portability in the financial sector” (32). As of March 2026, “more than 2.88 billion financial accounts are enabled to share data on Account Aggregator, 284.6 million accounts have been linked by users to the Account Aggregator framework” (33). Yet, Khandelwal says this kind of success rate could be hard to replicate on a more complicated platform.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">How do these frameworks compare? Both frameworks have a general data protection regime but only the European Union specifically calls out portability. In addition, it’s worth noting that India’s DPDPA only becomes fully enforceable in May 2027. There is a proposal in India to move this up to November 2026, but it has yet to be adopted (34). In addition, the European Union’s DMA pushes portability on the largest platforms (Article 6(9) and India’s DCB would do the same, however, the bill has been paused awaiting a market study) (35).</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">How do these frameworks compare? Both frameworks have a general data protection regime but only the European Union specifically calls out portability. In addition, it’s worth noting that India’s DPDPA only becomes fully enforceable in May 2027. There is a proposal in India to move this up to November 2026, but it has yet to be adopted (34). In addition, the European Union’s DMA pushes portability on the largest platforms (Article 6(9) and India’s DCB would do the same, however, the bill has been paused awaiting a market study) (35).</p>
	India has no Data Act equivalent. Khandelwal ~~considered~~ that India may be following Australia’s model of going by sector rather than providing one general right like the GDPR. Like Australia’s Consumer Data Right model~~, which extends data rights sector by sector~~, India may be attempting the same ~~sector~~ approach to make the compliance costs smaller for companies (36). It is worth noting that the DPDPA does refer to an “interoperable platform” which makes it plausible that portability was intended at some stage in India (37).<p style="text-align: justify;">What’s the ultimate outcome of the law? The two systems pursue similar goals with different approaches. With the GDPR and Data Act, the European Union provides a broad right that is enforceable. However, people are rarely able to use this effectively because the European Union lacks the technical infrastructure to let users transfer their data easily between data holders. India has the technical infrastructure for individuals to request their financial data easily including interoperability, but mainly in the financial sector. It does not offer any broad right to individuals like the GDPR in terms of social media platforms, for example. It is interesting that both systems have what the other needs: the European Union has the broad right, but not the technical ability to allow individuals to effectively use it, while India has the necessary technical infrastructure, but not the broad right.</p>		India has no Data Act equivalent. Although India never officially explained why it dropped the general right to data portability from the final DPDPA nor why its taking a sectoral approach, Khandelwal considers that India may be following Australia’s model of going by sector rather than providing one general right like the GDPR. Like Australia’s Consumer Data Right model, India may be attempting the same sectoral approach to make the compliance costs smaller for companies (36). It is worth noting that the DPDPA does refer to an “interoperable platform” which makes it plausible that portability was intended at some stage in India (37).<p style="text-align: justify;">What’s the ultimate outcome of the law? The two systems pursue similar goals with different approaches. With the GDPR and Data Act, the European Union provides a broad right that is enforceable. However, people are rarely able to use this effectively because the European Union lacks the technical infrastructure to let users transfer their data easily between data holders. India has the technical infrastructure for individuals to request their financial data easily including interoperability, but mainly in the financial sector. It does not offer any broad right to individuals like the GDPR in terms of social media platforms, for example. It is interesting that both systems have what the other needs: the European Union has the broad right, but not the technical ability to allow individuals to effectively use it, while India has the necessary technical infrastructure, but not the broad right.</p>

	= References =		= References =

Davey Kate: /* References */

2026-10-09T06:24:14Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 9 October 2026
Line 91:		Line 91:
	(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.		(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.

	(34) ~~Department of Financial Services~~, ~~Ministry of Finance~~ (~~India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services~~, ~~last updated 27~~ May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026		(34) Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, “DPDP Act and Rules: A Ticking Compliance Timeline” (Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, 12 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.

	(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); ~~Akanksha Nagar~~, ~~“Indian Startups Urge MCA to Ensure Transparency in~~ Digital Competition ~~Market Study”~~ (~~Storyboard18, 23 September~~ 2025) ~~accessed 9 October 2026~~.		(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India), Lok Sabha, Written Answer of the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs (Shri Harsh Malhotra) on the Draft Digital Competition Bill (19 August 2025).

	(36) Khandelwal (n 9); ACCC (n 5).		(36) Khandelwal (n 9); ACCC (n 5).

	(37) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6), s 2(g).		(37) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6), s 2(g).

Davey Kate: /* References */

2026-10-09T06:14:46Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 9 October 2026
Line 77:		Line 77:
	(24) GDPR (n 23).		(24) GDPR (n 23).

	(25) ~~Lazarotto~~ (~~n 22~~).		(25) Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on Harmonised Rules on Fair Access to and Use of Data and Amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (Data Act) (2023) OJ L 2023/2854.

	(26) ~~DPDP Act 2023~~ (n 6).		(26) Lazarotto (n 22).

	(27) [https://academic.oup.com/idpl/article-abstract/9/3/173/5529345?redirectedFrom=fulltext Wong Janis & Henderson Tristan, “The Right to Data Portability in Practice: Exploring the Implications of the Technologically Neutral GDPR” (2019) 9(3) ~~International Data Privacy Law 173, accessed 4 October 2026~~.]		(27) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6).

	(28) [https://~~petsymposium~~.~~org~~/~~popets~~/~~2021~~/~~popets-2021-0051.php Syrmoudis Emmanuel~~ & ~~Others~~, ~~“Data~~ Portability ~~between Online Services~~: ~~An Empirical Analysis on~~ the ~~Effectiveness~~ of ~~GDPR Article 20” [2021]~~ (3) ~~Proceedings on~~ Privacy ~~Enhancing Technologies 351~~.]		(28) [https://academic.oup.com/idpl/article-abstract/9/3/173/5529345?redirectedFrom=fulltext Wong Janis & Henderson Tristan, “The Right to Data Portability in Practice: Exploring the Implications of the Technologically Neutral GDPR” (2019) 9(3) International Data Privacy Law 173, accessed 4 October 2026.]

	(29) ~~Khandelwal~~ (~~n 9~~).		(29) [https://petsymposium.org/popets/2021/popets-2021-0051.php Syrmoudis Emmanuel & Others, “Data Portability between Online Services: An Empirical Analysis on the Effectiveness of GDPR Article 20” [2021] (3) Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 351.]

	(30) ~~Khandelwal~~ (n 9).		(30) Lazarotto (n 22).<br><br>(31) Data Act (n 25), art 50.

	(31) ~~[https://financialservices~~.~~gov.in/account-aggregator-framework~~ Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (~~<em>~~India~~</em>~~), “Account Aggregator Framework” (~~<em>~~Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026~~</em>~~) accessed 4 October 2026.]		(32) Khandelwal (n 9).<br>(33) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026.

	(32) ~~DCB 2024~~ (~~n 19~~).		(34) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance (India), “Account Aggregator Framework” (Department of Financial Services, last updated 27 May 2026) accessed 4 October 2026

	(33) ~~Khandelwal~~ (n 9).		(35) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act) (2022) OJ L265/1, art 6(9); DCB 2024 (n 19); Akanksha Nagar, “Indian Startups Urge MCA to Ensure Transparency in Digital Competition Market Study” (Storyboard18, 23 September 2025) accessed 9 October 2026.

	(34) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6)		(36) Khandelwal (n 9); ACCC (n 5).

			(37) DPDP Act 2023 (n 6), s 2(g).

Davey Kate: /* Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime */

2026-10-09T06:05:46Z

Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 9 October 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	<p style="text-align: justify;">The two most important laws to consider when comparing the European Union’s data portability right to that of India are the GDPR and the Data Act.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">The two most important laws to consider when comparing the European Union’s data portability right to that of India are the GDPR and the Data Act.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">Data portability rights began in the European Union as data protection rights (22). Article 20 of the GDPR allows individuals to request the personal data they gave to a data holder and have it transmitted to another data holder, where it is “technically feasible” (23). A data holder (“data controller” in the regulation’s terminology) could be any person, public authority, agency or other body that “alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data” (24). The purpose of the regulation is to give individuals control over their personal data and to foster competition between data holders.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">Data portability rights began in the European Union as data protection rights (22). Article 20 of the GDPR allows individuals to request the personal data they gave to a data holder and have it transmitted to another data holder, where it is “technically feasible” (23). A data holder (“data controller” in the regulation’s terminology) could be any person, public authority, agency or other body that “alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data” (24). The purpose of the regulation is to give individuals control over their personal data and to foster competition between data holders.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">The Data Act, on the other hand, is about data innovation. Unlike the GDPR, which just focuses on personal data, the Data Act covers data in general, personal and non-personal. As Lazarotto states, “the Data Act avoids the dichotomy between personal and non-personal data” (25). This law is about the data economy and making sure that users are able to access and share their data for innovation purposes, however they see fit to use that information.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">The Data Act, on the other hand, is about data innovation. Unlike the GDPR, which just focuses on personal data, the Data Act covers data in general, personal and non-personal (25). As Lazarotto states, “the Data Act avoids the dichotomy between personal and non-personal data” (26). This law is about the data economy and making sure that users are able to access and share their data for innovation purposes, however they see fit to use that information.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">India’s DPDPA has a similar goal to that of the GDPR in terms of protecting individuals’ personal data, but it is not as broad on data portability rights (26). Data portability rights do exist in India’s financial sector within its Account Aggregator for Open Banking framework, which allows financial data to be transferred between financial institutions at the request of the individual.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">India’s DPDPA has a similar goal to that of the GDPR in terms of protecting individuals’ personal data, but it is not as broad on data portability rights (27). Data portability rights do exist in India’s financial sector within its Account Aggregator for Open Banking framework, which allows financial data to be transferred between financial institutions at the request of the individual.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">But are those objectives being met? In the European Union, the GDPR’s objective is partially being met. As Wong and Henderson showed in their study in “The Right to Data Portability in Practice: Exploring the Implications of the Technologically Neutral GDPR” out of 230 portability requests, only 172 (about 75%) were successfully completed (27).</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">But are those objectives being met? In the European Union, the GDPR’s objective is partially being met. As Wong and Henderson showed in their study in “The Right to Data Portability in Practice: Exploring the Implications of the Technologically Neutral GDPR” out of 230 portability requests, only 172 (about 75%) were successfully completed (28).</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">In addition, Emmanuel Syrmoudis, the lead author of “Data Portability between Online Services: An Empirical Analysis on the Effectiveness of GDPR Article 20” explained their findings of 182 online services to “the absence of an infrastructure realizing direct data portability” (28). Perhaps it is because of this lack of technical infrastructure that Lazarotto states that despite broad applications, the right hasn’t been used very often. The Data Act has only been applicable since September 2025, so it is even harder to say how effective it has been.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">In addition, Emmanuel Syrmoudis, the lead author of “Data Portability between Online Services: An Empirical Analysis on the Effectiveness of GDPR Article 20” explained their findings of 182 online services to “the absence of an infrastructure realizing direct data portability” (29). Perhaps it is because of this lack of technical infrastructure that Lazarotto states that despite broad applications, the right hasn’t been used very often (30). The Data Act has only been applicable since September 2025 (31), so it is even harder to say how effective it has been.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">While India does not provide individuals with a general data portability right, in terms of finance, its data portability system works quite well. As Khandelwal concludes India has seen, “a high success rate with interoperability and data portability in the financial sector” (29). As of March 2026, “more than 2.88 billion financial accounts are enabled to share data on Account Aggregator, 284.6 million accounts have been linked by users to the Account Aggregator framework” (30). Yet, Khandelwal says this kind of success rate could be hard to replicate on a more complicated platform.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">While India does not provide individuals with a general data portability right, in terms of finance, its data portability system works quite well. As Khandelwal concludes India has seen, “a high success rate with interoperability and data portability in the financial sector” (32). As of March 2026, “more than 2.88 billion financial accounts are enabled to share data on Account Aggregator, 284.6 million accounts have been linked by users to the Account Aggregator framework” (33). Yet, Khandelwal says this kind of success rate could be hard to replicate on a more complicated platform.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">How do these frameworks compare? Both frameworks have a general data protection regime but only the European Union specifically calls out portability. In addition, it’s worth noting that India’s DPDPA only becomes fully enforceable in May 2027. There is a proposal in India to move this up to November 2026, but it has yet to be adopted (31). In addition, the European Union’s DMA pushes portability on the largest platforms (Article 6(9) and India’s DCB would do the same, however, the bill has been paused awaiting a market study) (32).</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">How do these frameworks compare? Both frameworks have a general data protection regime but only the European Union specifically calls out portability. In addition, it’s worth noting that India’s DPDPA only becomes fully enforceable in May 2027. There is a proposal in India to move this up to November 2026, but it has yet to be adopted (34). In addition, the European Union’s DMA pushes portability on the largest platforms (Article 6(9) and India’s DCB would do the same, however, the bill has been paused awaiting a market study) (35).</p>
	India has no Data Act equivalent. Khandelwal considered that India may be following Australia’s model of going by sector rather than providing one general right like the GDPR. Like Australia’s Consumer Data Right model, which extends data rights sector by sector, India may be attempting the same sector approach to make the compliance costs smaller for companies (33). It is worth noting that the DPDPA does refer to an “interoperable platform” which makes it plausible that portability was intended at some stage in India (34).<p style="text-align: justify;">What’s the ultimate outcome of the law? The two systems pursue similar goals with different approaches. With the GDPR and Data Act, the European Union provides a broad right that is enforceable. However, people are rarely able to use this effectively because the European Union lacks the technical infrastructure to let users transfer their data easily between data holders. India has the technical infrastructure for individuals to request their financial data easily including interoperability, but mainly in the financial sector. It does not offer any broad right to individuals like the GDPR in terms of social media platforms, for example. It is interesting that both systems have what the other needs: the European Union has the broad right, but not the technical ability to allow individuals to effectively use it, while India has the necessary technical infrastructure, but not the broad right.</p>		India has no Data Act equivalent. Khandelwal considered that India may be following Australia’s model of going by sector rather than providing one general right like the GDPR. Like Australia’s Consumer Data Right model, which extends data rights sector by sector, India may be attempting the same sector approach to make the compliance costs smaller for companies (36). It is worth noting that the DPDPA does refer to an “interoperable platform” which makes it plausible that portability was intended at some stage in India (37).<p style="text-align: justify;">What’s the ultimate outcome of the law? The two systems pursue similar goals with different approaches. With the GDPR and Data Act, the European Union provides a broad right that is enforceable. However, people are rarely able to use this effectively because the European Union lacks the technical infrastructure to let users transfer their data easily between data holders. India has the technical infrastructure for individuals to request their financial data easily including interoperability, but mainly in the financial sector. It does not offer any broad right to individuals like the GDPR in terms of social media platforms, for example. It is interesting that both systems have what the other needs: the European Union has the broad right, but not the technical ability to allow individuals to effectively use it, while India has the necessary technical infrastructure, but not the broad right.</p>

	= References =		= References =

Davey Kate: /* Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime */

2026-10-09T05:56:46Z

Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:56, 9 October 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:

	= Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime =		= Comparison with the European Union Data Portability Regime =
	<p style="text-align: justify;">The ~~three~~ most important laws to consider when comparing the European Union’s data portability right to that of India are the GDPR and the Data Act.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">The two most important laws to consider when comparing the European Union’s data portability right to that of India are the GDPR and the Data Act.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">Data portability rights began in the European Union as data protection rights (22). Article 20 of the GDPR allows individuals to request the personal data they gave to a data holder and have it transmitted to another data holder, where it is “technically feasible” (23). A data holder (“data controller” in the regulation’s terminology) could be any person, public authority, agency or other body that “alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data” (24). The purpose of the regulation is to give individuals control over their personal data and to foster competition between data holders.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">Data portability rights began in the European Union as data protection rights (22). Article 20 of the GDPR allows individuals to request the personal data they gave to a data holder and have it transmitted to another data holder, where it is “technically feasible” (23). A data holder (“data controller” in the regulation’s terminology) could be any person, public authority, agency or other body that “alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data” (24). The purpose of the regulation is to give individuals control over their personal data and to foster competition between data holders.</p>
	<p style="text-align: justify;">The Data Act, on the other hand, is about data innovation. Unlike the GDPR, which just focuses on personal data, the Data Act covers data in general, personal and non-personal. As Lazarotto states, “the Data Act avoids the dichotomy between personal and non-personal data” (25). This law is about the data economy and making sure that users are able to access and share their data for innovation purposes, however they see fit to use that information.</p>		<p style="text-align: justify;">The Data Act, on the other hand, is about data innovation. Unlike the GDPR, which just focuses on personal data, the Data Act covers data in general, personal and non-personal. As Lazarotto states, “the Data Act avoids the dichotomy between personal and non-personal data” (25). This law is about the data economy and making sure that users are able to access and share their data for innovation purposes, however they see fit to use that information.</p>