DPDP vs GDPR: What SaaS Companies With Indian Users Must Know

DPDP and GDPR share the same goal of protecting individuals' personal data but they differ in ways that matter operationally for SaaS companies. GDPR has a broader legal basis for processing, covers sensitive data categories separately, and uses adequacy decisions for cross-border transfers. DPDP relies almost entirely on consent, has no sensitive data categories, uses a negative-list model for cross-border transfers, and requires breach notification for every incident regardless of severity. 

If your SaaS already runs a GDPR compliance programme, it covers some of what DPDP requires but not all of it, and the gaps are not small.

This guide covers exactly where the two frameworks align, where they diverge, and what your SaaS team specifically needs to build or change to satisfy DPDP on top of existing GDPR compliance.

Where DPDP and GDPR Actually Align

Many SaaS companies serving Indian users made the same assumption when the DPDP Act passed in 2023: that existing GDPR compliance would largely carry over. It is a reasonable starting point, given that both frameworks are built on similar principles of consent, transparency, data minimisation, and individual rights.

But the operational differences are significant enough that assuming GDPR compliance equals DPDP compliance has already created real exposure for companies that never stopped to check.

Starting with what carries over is useful. It clarifies the genuine gap rather than overstating the rebuild required.

Both frameworks require:

• A lawful basis for processing personal data, with consent as the primary mechanism

• Clear, plain-language notice to users about what data is collected and why

• Individual rights to access and correct personal data

• Breach notification obligations to both regulators and affected individuals

• Contractual protections with third-party processors

• Security safeguards proportionate to the risk of processing

If your GDPR compliance programme is genuinely operational, not just documented, much of this infrastructure already exists. The question is whether it meets DPDP's specific requirements in each area, which is where the differences start to matter.

Where DPDP Diverges From GDPR

Lawful basis for processing

GDPR provides six lawful bases for processing personal data: consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, and legitimate interests. Legitimate interests, in particular, are widely used by SaaS companies for processing that would be difficult to obtain explicit consent for at scale, analytics, fraud prevention, product improvement, and similar activities.

DPDP does not have a legitimate interest basis. The Act provides two lawful bases: consent, and a narrow category called "legitimate use" which covers government-mandated processing, employment-related processing, and a handful of specific scenarios. It does not cover the commercial processing activities that most SaaS companies rely on legitimate interests for under GDPR.

In practice, this means processing activities your SaaS currently relies on GDPR legitimate interests to justify need to be re-examined for Indian users. Some will require explicit consent. Others may need to stop for that user segment.

Consent requirements

Both frameworks require consent to be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. DPDP adds requirements that go further than GDPR in several ways.

Under DPDP, consent must be accompanied by a standalone, plain-language notice,  not embedded in terms of service or a general privacy policy. That notice must be available in all 22 scheduled languages of India if requested. The Rules do not require you to proactively serve all 22 languages, but you must be able to provide the notice in the user's preferred language on request.

Consent under DPDP must also be granular per purpose. Bundled consent for multiple processing activities in a single checkbox does not meet the standard. Each purpose needs its own consent mechanism.

Withdrawal of consent must be as easy as giving it, a requirement that exists in GDPR but is more strictly interpreted under DPDP, with clear obligations on Data Fiduciaries to stop processing and erase data promptly when consent is withdrawn.

Sensitive data categories

GDPR defines special categories of sensitive personal data, health, biometric, genetic, racial, religious, sexual orientation and similar and applies stricter processing rules to them, requiring explicit consent or specific legal bases.

DPDP has no separate sensitive data categories. All personal data is treated under the same framework. This simplifies one aspect of compliance but also means there is no enhanced protection regime for genuinely sensitive data, which creates its own design considerations for SaaS products handling health or financial information of Indian users.

Breach notification

GDPR requires notification to the supervisory authority within 72 hours of becoming aware of a breach, but only when the breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Notification to affected individuals is required only when the breach is likely to result in a high risk.

DPDP requires notification of every personal data breach to the Data Protection Board immediately on discovery, and to affected users within 72 hours. There is no harm threshold. A misconfiguration that briefly exposed three user records carries the same notification obligation as a breach affecting millions.

This is a significant operational difference. Under GDPR, many low-severity incidents are assessed, documented internally, and not reported. Under DPDP, that risk-based assessment does not exist in the same way. Your incident response process needs a separate track for Indian user data that triggers notification without the harm threshold filter your GDPR process likely uses.

Digisecuritas' Data Protection and Privacy practice designs breach notification processes that handle GDPR and DPDP obligations on separate tracks, ensuring the right notification goes to the right regulator within the right window regardless of which user population is affected. Our ransomware incident response playbook covers the underlying incident response discipline this sits within.

Cross-border data transfers

GDPR uses an adequacy framework for cross-border transfers. Data can flow freely to countries the European Commission has deemed adequate, and to other countries using approved mechanisms: Standard Contractual Clauses, Binding Corporate Rules, or specific derogations.

DPDP uses a negative-list model. Personal data of Indian users can be transferred to any country unless the Central Government specifically restricts that country by notification. No adequacy assessments, no SCCs, no BCRs, the default is permissive, and restrictions are imposed by executive notification rather than pre-approved mechanisms.

For most SaaS companies, this actually makes cross-border transfer compliance easier under DPDP than GDPR in the near term, since no transfer mechanism is required unless India restricts a specific destination. 

However, Significant Data Fiduciaries face additional localisation requirements under Rule 12 that restrict transfers of certain categories of personal data, which is covered in detail in our piece on Significant Data Fiduciary obligations under DPDP.

The position may also change as the Central Government issues country restriction notifications, so monitoring that list is an ongoing compliance obligation.

Data principal rights

GDPR provides eight data subject rights: access, rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, data portability, objection, rights related to automated decision-making, and the right to withdraw consent.

DPDP provides a narrower set: the right to access information about processing, the right to correct and erase personal data, the right to nominate someone to exercise rights on death or incapacity, and the right to withdraw consent.

Notably absent from DPDP: the right to data portability and the right to object to automated decision-making. For SaaS companies already running GDPR rights fulfilment, the DPDP rights set is a subset, meaning your existing infrastructure covers most of what is required, though the processes need to be mapped specifically to the DPDP rights framework and the Data Protection Board as the relevant authority.

Penalties

GDPR's maximum fine is €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher. For large technology companies, the turnover-based calculation produces penalties that can reach hundreds of millions of euros.

DPDP's maximum penalty is ₹250 crore per incident, approximately USD 30 million at current rates. It is a fixed cap rather than a percentage of turnover, which means for large global SaaS companies the absolute penalty is lower than GDPR's maximum. For smaller SaaS companies, ₹250 crore is a company-ending number.

The penalty structure under DPDP:

What Your SaaS Needs to Build or Change for DPDP

If you have a functioning GDPR compliance programme, here is the specific gap work DPDP requires on top of it.

Consent architecture for Indian users: Review every consent touchpoint in your product. Bundled consent, pre-ticked boxes, and consent embedded in terms of service do not meet DPDP's requirements. Build standalone, purpose-specific consent flows for Indian user data collection. This is primarily a product and engineering change, not a legal one.

Breach notification process without a harm threshold: Your GDPR incident response process almost certainly includes a harm assessment step before triggering notification. Build a separate track for Indian user data that bypasses that filter and triggers Board notification immediately, followed by user notification within 72 hours.

Legitimate interests audit: Identify every processing activity in your Indian user data pipeline that relies on GDPR legitimate interests as its lawful basis. Each of those needs a new lawful basis under DPDP, either user consent or one of the narrow legitimate use categories. Activities that cannot be re-based need to stop for Indian users or be redesigned.

Vendor contract review: Your existing GDPR Data Processing Agreements may not meet DPDP's requirements for Data Processor contracts. Review each agreement covering Indian user data and update where needed.

Grievance Redress Officer appointment: DPDP requires Data Fiduciaries to appoint a Grievance Redress Officer and publish contact details so users can raise complaints. This is a specific DPDP requirement with no direct GDPR equivalent.

Rights fulfilment mapped to DPDP: Even if your GDPR rights fulfilment process is working, it needs to be mapped to the DPDP rights framework and the Data Protection Board as the authority for Indian user complaints, separately from EU supervisory authorities.

Digisecuritas' DPDP Compliance Services include a structured GDPR-to-DPDP gap assessment that identifies exactly which parts of your existing programme carry over and what specifically needs to be built for Indian user data compliance. The approach is covered in full in our piece on running GDPR and DPDP compliance as one programme.

A Side-by-Side Comparison

Conclusion

GDPR compliance is a useful starting point for DPDP, not a substitute for it. The consent architecture, breach notification process, and lawful basis audit required for DPDP are distinct enough that they need to be built deliberately, not assumed to be covered by existing GDPR work.

The practical advantage for companies already running GDPR compliance is that the infrastructure, data mapping, vendor contracts, rights fulfilment does not need to be built from zero. It needs to be extended, with specific gaps closed for the DPDP requirements that have no GDPR equivalent.

Companies that have not yet run that gap assessment are operating with more DPDP exposure than they likely realise, particularly around consent architecture and breach notification, the two areas where the frameworks diverge most sharply and where the penalties for getting it wrong are highest.

Digisecuritas helps SaaS companies run a structured GDPR-to-DPDP gap assessment and build the specific changes needed for Indian user data compliance. Book a Discovery Call to find out exactly where your current programme stands and what closing the gap actually involves.