Also known as: processors · data processor
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A person that processes personal data on behalf of a controller. The term identifies an entity that handles consumer information solely according to the controller's instructions and subject to contractual and statutory limits.
A person that processes personal data on behalf of a controller. The term identifies an entity that handles consumer information solely according to the controller's instructions and subject to contractual and statutory limits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An entity engaged in the processing of solid waste or other materials. The term identifies businesses whose operations are affected by state or local rules that favor in-state facilities over out-of-state competitors.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An entity engaged in the processing of solid waste or other materials. The term identifies businesses whose operations are affected by state or local rules that favor in-state facilities over out-of-state competitors.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Pacific Bank collects customer financial records and transmits them to Platinum Partners for storage and analysis. The service agreement states that Platinum Partners may use the data only as directed by Pacific Bank. When a consumer requests deletion, Platinum Partners must comply through Pacific Bank rather than acting independently.
A processor must process personal data only on documented instructions from the controller. It must implement appropriate security measures and assist the controller with consumer requests such as access or deletion.
Supporting sources
No. A processor may act only within the scope of the controller's instructions. Any use outside those instructions converts the processor into a controller and triggers additional compliance obligations.
Supporting sources
Phoenix Technologies operates a waste-processing plant across the state line. A municipal ordinance requires all local solid waste to be delivered only to a designated in-state facility. Phoenix sues, claiming the ordinance blocks its access to the local market. The court holds the ordinance unconstitutional because it discriminates against interstate commerce by protecting the in-state processor.
A local rule that forces all waste generated inside the municipality to be processed at a designated in-state site discriminates against interstate commerce. Such a measure is invalid because it erects a protectionist barrier against out-of-state processors.
Supporting sources