Stop, Collaborate & Listen: Privacy Impact Assessments Reduce Privacy Risk

Privacy impact assessments (“PIAs”) have been a standard requirement under global data-protection laws for years.  As U.S. state privacy legislation evolves, they’re becoming a frequent requirement there, as well.  Outside of the regulatory sphere, the SOC 2 Privacy Trust Service Category (“TSC”) will  require privacy risk-assessment processes in 2026 and moving forward. 

PIAs resemble safety checks in other industries.  For decades, surgical teams have used “time-outs” and pilots have worked through preflight checklists, all in the name of ensuring awareness of risks, reducing errors, and increasing safety.  PIAs do the same thing, ensuring any risky data processing is initiated with an awareness of associated risks.  This blog explores exactly what makes up a PIA and reviews common PIA components across jurisdictions and non-regulatory environments. 

Quick to the Point, to the Point, No Faking: What Actually is a PIA?

The surgical “time out” is an apt metaphor for the timing of a PIA.  Before an operation, the entire surgical team stops what they’re doing, collaborates, and listens to make sure they’re clear about the specifics of the procedure.  In a PIA, the cross-functional meets before potentially risky data processing to consider associated risks to individual privacy rights.   

The risks considered are enumerated differently across different jurisdictions. Generally, risks include security-related issues like inadvertent disclosure or data loss, or privacy-related issues like loss or impedance of data-subject rights or broader impacts on fundamental rights and freedoms (such as the right to free expression and non-discrimination).  

PIAs balance these risks against the processing's proposed benefits (such as improved products or services), and they assess safeguards or other mechanisms to mitigate the risks.  When the scales tip in the direction of an unacceptable risk, new or additional safeguards are required before processing may proceed.  These may include instituting stronger security measures, omitting a component of the proposed processing, or abstaining from the processing altogether. 

While the end result is a written document, a PIA is really defined by the analytical process followed by the team.  The document merely reflects that this process took place.  Some jurisdictions require that it be submitted to the controlling authority either if high risks remain after safeguards are in place or upon request, while others require that they be submitted proactively. 

Many jurisdictions publish general instances where a PIA is required, in addition to a more broad, “heightened risk” standard.  Typically, processing of sensitive personal information (pertaining to race, nationality, religion, etc.) and profiling are in these general instances.   

Examples of enforcement actions where a PIA was required (but not done) include: 

• Phone company processed a large amount of customer data (including location, political, and health data) in its new CRM system without proactively identifying or mitigating privacy risks, resulting in a €20 million fine.
• IT company's facial-recognition technology was deployed without a PIA, which could have helped prevent the subsequent data breach.
• Credit card company only focused on financial regulations when it deployed a new customer identification + verification process, ignoring privacy regulations requiring a PIA.

Take Heed … Just in Case You Didn’t Know it:  Common PIA Requirements

GDPR: Perhaps the most well-known PIA requirement comes from the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).  When a new project involves a “high risk” to the rights and freedoms of natural persons (such as profiling/behavioral advertising, processing information regarding criminal convictions or other sensitive data, and large-scale public monitoring), one must first prepare a PIA (or “DPIA” in GDPR parlance).  Under the GDPR, a DPIA must assess the “necessity and proportionality” of the processing against the purpose(s), assess the risks to humans, and describe safeguards to mitigate those risks.  The European Data Protection Board has published lists of exemplar cases where DPIAs are required.

Other countries have similar requirements.  Brazil’s data-protection authority provides guidance on complying with their requirements, including consulting internal operators and external experts.  It also provides a fifteen-question non-exhaustive outline for organizations to address within their PIAs.  The Philippines’ PIA arises out of the security portion of the data privacy law; it requires entities to consider data-privacy best practices, risks of processing to privacy and security, and the cost of implementing security measures, all within the scope of the size, complexity, and resources of the entity.   

In the U.S., variations of PIAs are found in federal sectoral laws, such as the HIPAA Security Rule (requiring a risk analysis of threats + vulnerabilities to electronic health information) or the eGovernment Act (requiring PIAs on federal agency systems holding PII).  Otherwise, PIA requirements originate in state laws.  

As of mid-2025, almost every state with a data-privacy law requires some form of PIA.  Most states require a PIA before “high risk” processing, such as profiling/targeting advertising, sale of personal data, processing sensitive data (regarding race, religion, health, biometrics, etc.), or processing that otherwise presents a “heightened risk.” PIAs are generally kept on file, and they are only submitted to a controlling authority upon request. 

California’s new regulations under the CCPA go a step further. Their “significant risk” threshold and criteria are similar to other states.  However, businesses are required to proactively submit a yearly summary of PIAs conducted and review existing PIAs every three years (or with any new or substantial changes to processing). 

Certification and attestation schemes, like SOC 2, have also started looking at privacy risk assessments.  While SOC2’s Privacy TSC doesn’t specifically assess PIAs by name, its requirements for privacy-risk identification, assessment, and ongoing re-assessment (among others) very closely resemble the requirements of a PIA.  On the other hand, ISO 27701 (the privacy extension of ISO 27001) explicitly requires companies to have documented criteria for when to perform PIAs, as well as processes for performing them.   

If There Is a [PIA] Problem, Yo, We'll Solve It

PIAs go beyond mere compliance; they reflect a privacy-aware culture, which builds trust with both consumers and B2B clients.  They're in-depth processes that shouldn't be minimized.  Ensuring you capture the relevant risks, comply with applicable regulations, and prepare a defensible PIA in an efficient yet thorough manner is no easy task. 

Coalfire’s DivisionHex privacy specialists are seasoned at developing and assessing privacy programs across jurisdictions.  We partner with companies on discrete components of such programs, such as PIAs, ensuring that new products and services keep moving forward while respecting individual privacy rights. 

Get in touch with Coalfire today; don’t let privacy risk from missing or insufficient PIAs leave your company out on thin Ice, Ice, Baby.