EU AI Act Article 50: AI Transparency Rules from August 2026

The CNIL‘s screening rule sounds simple: hit two of the nine high-risk criteria, and you owe a full Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). The trouble starts when you hit one or none, because the GDPR never says that skipping the DPIA means skipping assessment altogether. Plenty of processing falls outside the CNIL’s screening rules: operations below the two-criteria threshold, activities on the CNIL’s exemption list, processing already covered by an earlier DPIA, and controllers who answer to a different supervisory authority altogether. In every one of those cases, the Article 35 GDPR DPIA obligation may fall away while the risk assessment obligations under Articles 24 and 32 stay exactly where they were. This article maps the scenarios where CNIL criteria don’t apply and what a defensible assessment strategy looks like when they don’t. DPIA vs General Risk Assessment: Core Distinctions Under GDPR These two assessments get conflated constantly, and the mix-up has real consequences. They rest on different legal bases, serve different purposes, and trigger under different conditions. Article 35 GDPR requires a DPIA where processing is “likely to result in a high risk” to people’s rights and freedoms, and it requires the assessment before processing begins. The DPIA looks outward. It evaluates the necessity and proportionality of the processing and the risks it creates for data subjects: discrimination, identity theft, financial loss, reputational damage, loss of control over personal data. The measuring stick throughout is harm to people. Article 32 GDPR requires controllers and processors to put in place technical and organizational measures (TOMs) appropriate to the risk of the processing. You can’t know what’s appropriate without assessing that risk first, so Article 32 carries an implicit risk assessment duty for every processing operation you run, high risk or not. Its focus is security: the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and resilience of the systems handling personal data. Article 24 completes the picture by making the controller responsible for implementing measures proportionate to risk and able to demonstrate compliance. That’s the accountability principle at work. So risk assessment is universal, and the DPIA is the escalated version you reserve for processing that crosses the high-risk line. The real question is which assessment to run and how deep to go. You don’t need a six-figure budget to be GDPR compliant. You need a clear plan and someone to do the work. Affordable GDPR Compliance Services Book a Free GDPR Consultation The CNIL Criteria: A Quick Recap The Article 35(3) Baseline and the 9 Criteria Article 35(3) names three situations where a DPIA is always mandatory: systematic and extensive automated evaluation of individuals, including profiling, with legal or similarly significant effects; large-scale processing of special categories of data (Article 9) or criminal conviction data (Article 10); and large-scale systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area. Beyond those, the WP29 guidelines on DPIAs (WP248 rev.01), endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), list nine criteria that indicate likely high-risk processing: evaluation or scoring, including profiling; automated decision-making with legal or similarly significant effect; systematic monitoring; sensitive data or data of a highly personal nature; processing on a large scale; matching or combining datasets; data concerning vulnerable data subjects (employees, patients, children); innovative use or application of new technological or organizational solutions; and processing that prevents data subjects from exercising a right or using a service or contract. The “Two Criteria” Threshold Rule The CNIL’s position is that processing meeting at least two of the nine criteria requires a DPIA as a general rule. WP248 leaves room on both sides of that line: a controller can conclude that processing meeting two criteria still isn’t high risk, and in some cases a single criterion is enough to trigger the obligation. Either way, the reasoning has to be documented. Where there’s genuine doubt, the CNIL’s advice is simple: do the DPIA. CNIL’s List of Processing Operations Requiring a DPIA The CNIL also maintains a mandatory list under Article 35(4), adopted through Deliberation No. 2018-327 of October 11, 2018. It names 14 types of processing that require a DPIA outright, including systematic employee monitoring, whistleblowing schemes, profiling that can exclude people from a contract, and large-scale processing of health data. If your processing appears on this list, you can skip the criteria math because the DPIA is mandatory regardless. Insider Note: The CNIL’s sectoral “referentials” do more work than most DPOs realize. If your processing fully complies with an applicable referential, the CNIL accepts the position that residual risk isn’t high, which takes Article 36 prior consultation off the table. Checking for a referential before scoping a DPIA can remove the most painful step of the entire process. When CNIL Criteria Don’t Apply: Key Scenarios Processing Falling Below the Two-Criteria Threshold Most B2B processing lives here. A standard CRM, a newsletter list, routine supplier management: these might touch one criterion (large scale, perhaps) without hitting a second. No DPIA is required, but the screening itself is a compliance artifact. Record which criteria you tested, what you concluded, and why. If the CNIL inspects, the absence of a DPIA is defensible only when the screening decision is on paper. Operations on CNIL’s Exemption List Article 35(5) lets supervisory authorities publish “whitelists” of processing that doesn’t require a DPIA. The CNIL adopted one in 2019 after an EDPB opinion, covering categories such as routine HR management in organizations with fewer than 250 employees (without profiling, biometrics, or sensitive data), badge-based physical access control without biometrics, and time management systems that don’t process biometric data. France is one of only a few member states with a formal whitelist, which matters for cross-border groups: the same HR system can be exempt in France and assessable case by case in Luxembourg. Processing Authorized by Specific Legal Provisions Article 35(10) carves out processing based on a legal obligation or public interest task under Article 6(1)(c) or (e), where the legal basis regulates the specific operation and a general impact assessment was already carried out when that law was adopted. It’s a narrow