Consultation on our draft recognised legitimate interest guidance: requesting personal information for your public tasks or official functions – summary of responses
Introduction
In August 2025 we launched a public consultation seeking your views on our draft guidance about recognised legitimate interest: requesting personal information for your public tasks or official functions.
The consultation ran until 30 October 2025. This page summarises the key themes emerging from the consultation responses.
About the consultation
We received 18 responses to the public consultation. We thank everyone who took the time to comment and share their views. The table below shows the category of respondents (as selected by them):
| Category of respondent | Responses |
|---|---|
| An organisation | 15 |
| An academic or researcher | 0 |
| An individual acting in a professional capacity | 1 |
| An individual acting in a private capacity (eg someone providing their views as a member of the public) | 1 |
| Other | 1 |
In general, the responses were positive. The feedback received was helpful and constructive. It has helped us to shape the final version of the guidance.
This summary explains the key themes of the consultation feedback and changes we’ve made as a result.
Key themes
Shorthand name for the condition called "Disclosure for purposes of processing described in Article 6(1)(e)"
We asked respondents if they felt our suggested shorthand name for this recognised legitimate interest condition was better than the name in the UK GDPR. A majority agreed that our suggested name of ‘public task disclosure request’ was better than the original.
We also asked respondents to suggest alternative shorthand names for this condition. In response to this consultation we only received one suggestion of “public task disclosure condition”. However, we asked the same question and also sought alternative shorthand suggestions in the separate consultation on the draft recognised legitimate interest guidance. More suggestions were received during that consultation.
ICO response
We appreciate that most respondents preferred our shorthand suggestion to the name given in the law to this condition. But we felt that one of the shorthand names suggested by a respondent in the separate consultation on the draft detailed recognised legitimate interest guidance was even clearer.
This suggestion was ‘public task disclosure response’. We believe this shorthand name better reflects what this condition is about, ie responding to a request from an organisation who needs the personal information for their tasks or functions (eg a public authority). It also makes it clearer that this recognised legitimate interest condition is for the organisation receiving the request to use if they feel it’s appropriate. It is for their response, not for sending of the request.
We appreciate that the change in shorthand name from ‘public task disclosure request’ to ‘public task disclosure response’ may cause some confusion in the short term. But we believe that it provides greater clarity in the long term.
Ease of finding information and clarity
The majority of respondents felt that it was easy to find information in the draft guidance and were happy with its structure.
We asked respondents if the guidance was clear who it applies to. The majority felt that this was clear to them.
However, it was suggested that to make it even clearer, the guidance could have a section at the start that states who the intended audience is.
One respondent felt that the guidance should focus more on how this recognised legitimate interest condition helps the organisation that receives the request. Another respondent wanted the guidance to be clear on whether a public authority could use the condition if it receives a request from another public authority to share personal information.
The similarity between the name of the recognised legitimate interest basis and the name of the legitimate interest basis was also raised, with a respondent wanting these names to have a clearer distinction to avoid confusion.
We also asked respondents if the guidance was clear that it’s voluntary for the organisation to share personal information with the requester.
The majority of respondents were of the opinion that it was clear that this condition is about voluntary data sharing when a request is received. But we were asked that the guidance make clear that the organisation receiving the request may choose to use a different recognised legitimate interest condition to share the personal information.
There was also concern from a respondent that some public authorities may not make responsible requests.
ICO response
We are pleased respondents generally were clear who the guidance applied to. While the guidance already contained content that explained its intended audience, we have made this more prominent by placing this into its own short section.
We’ve also made it clearer that, where appropriate, the receiving organisation may choose to use a different recognised legitimate interest condition to share the personal information.
While it was not raised by respondents to this consultation, we have also updated the guidance to include how you can help the receiving organisation comply with the purpose limitation principle if they want to share the personal information with you.
The name of this lawful basis comes from the law. Our separate guidance on recognised legitimate interest contains a section explaining the differences between it and the legitimate interest lawful basis.
This guidance isn’t intended to explain how an organisation receiving a request may be able to apply this recognised legitimate interest condition. We have separate recognised legitimate interest guidance to help the receiving organisation. In that guidance we make clear that in some circumstances a public authority might be able to use this condition.
Making a request
Most respondents thought the guidance helped them understand when they could make a request for personal information needed for their tasks or functions.
Some respondents were concerned that there appeared to be emphasis on public authorities using their statutory powers instead of requesting voluntary disclosures of personal information. It was explained that using formal powers can be more resource intensive for the requester and could unfairly penalise organisations as they only have one chance to share personal information before risking penalties. Often statutory information gathering powers are a last resort if the organisation doesn’t positively engage with the requester.
There were some concerns about the potential for this condition to cause public authorities and others who have tasks or functions to make requests for personal information that are disproportionate.
ICO response
We did not intend public authorities to assume they always have to use their formal powers to request personal information from another organisation. We understand that in many cases a public authority may feel it’s more appropriate to ask an organisation to share personal information with them voluntarily.
Therefore, we have made it clearer in the guidance that if you already use your statutory powers you can continue to do so as normal. But if it’s more appropriate for voluntary data sharing you can consider making a request for disclosure of personal information needed for your tasks or functions.
We appreciate that some respondents may have concerns about whether requesting organisations will request personal information proportionately. The guidance gives a reminder that you’re responsible for ensuring your use of the requested personal information is compliant with data protection law. This includes the data minimisation principle.
Publication
The final version of the recognised legitimate interest: requesting personal information for your public tasks or official functions guidance was published on 23 March 2026.