POPI and the storing of personal information

“My business collects a lot of personal and financial information from our clients. This information is obtained both electronically and in hard copy format. Because of the volume of the information, we store the information electronically and in hard copy with an off-site data storage company. They don’t do anything with the data except store it for us. Does POPI apply to this relationship?”

The Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (“POPI”), although signed into law, has not yet fully come into effect. It is expected to become effective during 2018, once the office of the Information Regulator has been fully set up, and will then apply to all responsible parties.

POPI places specific obligations on parties who collect, store, use and destroy personal information in order to protect the persons to whom such personal information relates from suffering damage or harm and provides them with remedies should there be a breach by such a “responsible party” of the obligations imposed on it by POPI.

In your case, given the personal information of your clients that you collect, POPI will apply to your business. This question now is whether POPI will apply to the use of a third party company for storage of personal information.

POPI makes provision for and applies to the distribution of personal information to third parties who process (collect, store, use or destroy) such information on behalf of a responsible party, such as your business. These parties, referred to as “operators” by POPI, process personal information on behalf of a responsible party in terms of an agreement, without falling under the direct authority of the responsible party.

To determine whether or not a party can be classified as an operator involves two questions:

   
1. Do they determine the purpose (‘why’) and means (‘how’) for the processing of the personal information? 
2.  Do they process the personal information on the instruction of a responsible party in accordance with some agreement? 
   

If the first question is answered “No” and the second question “Yes”, then the entity will qualify as an operator. However, if the first question is answered “Yes”, then the entity will not be considered an operator and the second question becomes irrelevant as it would then appear that the entity is potentially itself a responsible party. If the second question is answered “No” under any circumstance, then the entity will also not be considered an operator in terms of POPI, as it falls outside the scope of the definition of an operator. 

In your case, it would appear that the third party that stores your information does “process” (storing) personal information on your behalf, such storage presumably being on the basis of an agreement with you. This makes the entity an operator processing personal information on your behalf.

Important to note is that the outsourcing of personal information to an operator does not release you as the responsible party from any of your obligations under POPI. This means, that should the operator contravene POPI in any way in respect of the data it stores for you, you will be held responsible. It is therefore vital that a proper operator agreement be in place between a responsible party and operator to ensure that the operator obligations in respect of POPI are clearly stipulated.

Our advice is to obtain the assistance of a POPI specialist to review any existing agreement you may have with the operator and if necessary help put an appropriate operator agreement in place to ensure that your use of the data storage company is POPI compliant.

February 7, 2018
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest