Law 25 vs GDPR: A Comparison for Organizations Subject to Both Regimes

A growing number of Quebec organizations have to comply with both Law 25 and the European GDPR: subsidiaries of European companies established in Quebec, Quebec companies that export to Europe, online platforms whose customer base spans both territories, SaaS vendors serving both markets. For these organizations, understanding where the two regimes converge and where they diverge allows for unified compliance instead of two redundant parallel programs.

This guide compares Quebec's Law 25 and Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the dimensions most useful to a compliance program: scope, legal basis, individual rights, governance, transfers, incidents, and sanctions.

Origins and Structure

The GDPR came into force in May 2018. It applies uniformly across the 27 European Union member states. Its extraterritorial reach is broad: it applies to any organization, regardless of its head office, that offers goods or services to people located in the EU or that monitors their behavior.

Quebec's Law 25 came into force in stages between September 2022 and September 2024. It modernizes two existing acts: the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (P-39.1) and the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies (A-2.1). It applies to Quebec organizations and, in many cases, to foreign organizations that collect information from people in Quebec.

Law 25 borrows heavily from the GDPR. Several concepts (impact assessments, right to erasure, high sanctions) were transposed directly from the European model.

Main Comparison Table

| Dimension | GDPR | Law 25 | |---|---|---| | In force | May 2018 | Sept. 2022 – Sept. 2024 (in stages) | | Geographic scope | EU + extraterritorial | Quebec + foreign organizations targeting Quebec | | Regulator | National authorities (CNIL in France, BfDI in Germany, etc.) coordinated by the EDPB | Commission d'accès à l'information (CAI) | | Legal basis for processing | 6 bases (consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interest, public interest, legitimate interest) | Consent-centric, with limited exceptions | | Privacy officer | DPO (mandatory in some cases) | RPP (mandatory for every organization) | | Impact assessment | DPIA required for high-risk processing | PIA required for high-risk processing and cross-border transfers | | Incident notification deadline | 72 hours to the authority | "With diligence" (days, not weeks) | | Notification to individuals | If high risk | If risk of serious injury | | Right of access | Yes, within 30 days | Yes, within 30 days | | Right to rectification | Yes | Yes | | Right to erasure | Yes (right to be forgotten) | Yes (de-indexing, withdrawal) | | Right to portability | Yes | Yes (since Sept. 2024) | | Right to object to automated decisions | Yes (GDPR article 22) | Yes (Law 25 section 12.1) | | International transfers | Adequacy decisions, standard clauses, BCR | Prior PIA, equivalent protection | | Maximum sanctions | €20M or 4% of global turnover | $25M CAD or 4% of global turnover |

Main Convergences

1. Aligned Financial Sanctions

The Law 25 sanctions ceiling (25 million Canadian dollars or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher) is calibrated against the GDPR. Both regimes can issue sanctions that threaten the financial viability of a mid-sized organization in cases of serious violation.

2. Very Similar Individual Rights

The rights of access, rectification, erasure, portability, and objection to automated decisions exist in both regimes. An organization that has structured its processes to handle GDPR requests is generally well positioned to handle Law 25 requests, after adjusting for the deadlines (30 days in both cases with some nuances) and the format of responses.

3. Risk-Based Approach

Both regimes expect a risk-based approach. The Law 25 PIA and the GDPR DPIA are similar tools: they document the privacy risks of a processing activity and justify the mitigation measures chosen.

4. Governance of Processors

Section 18.3 of Law 25 and article 28 of the GDPR play equivalent roles: they require a written contract with mandatory minimum clauses between the controller and the processor. The data processing addenda (DPAs) signed with SaaS vendors for the GDPR generally cover most of section 18.3's requirements.

Important Divergences

1. The Place of Consent

The GDPR recognizes six legal bases for processing, including "legitimate interest," which covers a significant share of common activities (direct marketing to existing customers, system security, fraud prevention). Consent is one basis among six.

Law 25 places consent at the center. Exceptions exist but are more limited. An organization that relies heavily on legitimate interest under GDPR must revisit that footing when it processes information of people in Quebec: explicit consent is more often required.

2. The Incident Notification Deadline

The GDPR requires 72 hours to notify a breach to the supervisory authority. Law 25 uses the phrase "with diligence" without a specific deadline. In practice, the CAI expects notification within a few days. Organizations used to GDPR's 72-hour countdown generally have an operational advantage.

3. International Transfers

Under the GDPR, transfers to third countries rely on European Commission adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses (SCCs), or binding corporate rules (BCRs). Canada benefits from a partial adequacy decision that covers certain private-sector activities.

Under Law 25, transfers outside Quebec require a case-by-case PIA and a demonstration that the information will receive equivalent protection. The mechanism is more individualized than under GDPR.

In practice, a European organization transferring information to a Quebec subsidiary likely uses SCCs or the adequacy decision. The Quebec subsidiary that re-transfers this information to the United States (for example, to head office or to a US-based SaaS vendor) must run its own PIA under Law 25.

4. The Privacy Officer Designation

The GDPR DPO is mandatory in only three cases: public authority, systematic and large-scale processing, or large-scale processing of special categories. Many European SMEs are not required to appoint one.

The Law 25 RPP is mandatory for every organization. There is no size threshold. A five-person Quebec SME has the same designation obligation as a large enterprise.

5. The Material Scope

The GDPR clearly distinguishes "personal data" from "sensitive personal data" (with a stricter regime for the latter: health, political opinions, sexual orientation, racial origin, etc.). Law 25 uses the notion of "sensitive personal information" but the framework is less systematic. Both regimes specifically address health information, but with different modalities.

Strategy for Unified Compliance

For an organization subject to both regimes, several approaches work. The most effective generally involves:

Adopt GDPR as the most demanding internal standard on the dimensions where it leads (detailed processor clauses, 72-hour incident deadlines, formal documentation of legal bases).
Layer Law 25 on top for the dimensions where it leads (RPP mandatory for every organization, PIA for cross-border transfers, more explicit consent).
Single bilingual privacy policy that covers both regimes' requirements, instead of two separate policies.
Unified processing register that maps where data is processed and under which regime.
Single individual-rights response procedure, with internal routing based on the applicable regime.

This approach reduces redundancy and the risk of divergence. It does require ongoing tracking of regulatory evolution on both sides.

How Observantia Supports This Work

Observantia is built around Law 25 requirements, and several of its functions (vendor register, PIA, incident register, retention schedule) also cover the equivalent GDPR obligations. For an organization managing both regimes, Observantia serves as a central point that can feed the documentation for both compliance programs. Start your 14-day free trial.

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For questions specific to your situation, consult a qualified legal professional.