Augmented Advocacy Series (Bermuda): PIPA and Anonymisation

Published: 29 Oct 2024
Type: Insight

With the Personal Information Protection Act 2016 (PIPA) coming into force on 1 January, organisations in Bermuda face the critical challenge of balancing stringent data protection requirements with the increasing demand for data-driven information systems.

The use of these systems requires access to vast amounts of data, raising compliance concerns among tech-forward organisations.

PIPA applies to every organisation that uses personal information in Bermuda where that personal information is used wholly or partly by automated means or where it forms part of a structured filing system.

Under PIPA personal information (PI) means any information about an identified or identifiable individual.

The use of PI includes any operation performed on it, such as collecting, obtaining, recording, holding, storing, organising, adapting, altering, retrieving, transferring, consulting, disclosing, disseminating or otherwise making available, combining, blocking, erasing or destroying it.

Organisations must ensure that the use of PI is limited to specific purposes, as outlined under PIPA. If the purpose for using PI changes, consent should be obtained from the individual before their PI is used for the new purpose.

We note, however, that PIPA applies only to PI as defined above.

This means that where information is not about an identified or identifiable individual, that information will fall outside of PIPA’s scope.

Accordingly, where data is appropriately anonymised so that it does not constitute personal information, it can be used for other purposes, including information systems.

PIPA does not mention or define the term “anonymisation”. Interestingly, the 2024 amendment to the Bermuda Health Council Act 2004 refers to anonymisation of identifying information; however, it does not provide a definition, either.

Absent further regulatory guidance on this point and based on the definition of PI in PIPA, PI is therefore “anonymised” when it cannot be used on its own, or with any other information, to deduce or determine the identity of the individual to whom it relates, directly or indirectly.

There are various factors to consider when determining the degree of anonymisation needed. It is often not as simple as removing one’s name, address or phone number.

The amount and type of information needed to identify an individual can vary based on factors such as location and the source or form of the information.

Information may be unique — and thus identifying — within Bermuda’s smaller population compared with large, densely populated cities such as London or New York.

Biometric and genetic information are examples of PI that pose a higher risk of identification due to their distinctive nature, particularly in smaller populations.

Some more examples:

  • In a medical context: a distinct set of physical characteristics or medical conditions, that are not expressly associated with the name of an individual, could identify an individual patient and thus constitute PI.
  • In a finance context: a unique combination of rare financial instruments, investment types, and geographic locations could identify a specific investor.
  • In a real estate context: details about a property transaction, such as a landmark building or a specific location in a niche market, could lead to the identification of the buyer or seller.

As modern technology’s reliance on data continues to increase, organisations must be cognisant of the implications for data protection.

Anonymising data is one method of safeguarding PI but it requires careful examination and consideration of various factors.

When in doubt, obtaining consent from the individual to which the PI relates is the safest approach to ensuring your organisation remains compliant with its PIPA obligations.

Failing to adhere to these obligations could result in a potential fine of up to $250,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.

Authored by Associate Ligaya Sanchez-Wilson and Trainee Akira McDonald. 

First Published in The Royal Gazette, Legally Speaking column, October 2024

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Jersey2
6 May 2026

A Changing Landscape for Business Relocation

Find out more about the changing landscape for business relocation to Jersey

jersey
29 Apr 2026

Experience Meets The Future: Inside Appleby's Property Team

Why Appleby Jersey's Property team offers grounded advice that is never stuck in the past

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-BVI1
27 Apr 2026

Back to Basics - Dispute Series

Winding-Up Petitions in the BVI – A Practical Guide For Creditors Applying to appoint a BVI liquidator is one of the most cost effective and efficient tools available to creditors who want to recover debts or liabilities from BVI companies and is often a go-to strategy where simpler methods of debt collection have failed. Once appointed, a liquidator has a broad range of immediate powers including the ability to take possession and control of all of the company’s assets. In this guide, we highlight the process and the key principles for creditors to consider prior to and during the liquidator appointment process. 

Economic Substance
27 Apr 2026

Economic substance regime now falls under Cita

Recent amendments to Bermuda’s economic substance regime have transferred regulatory responsibility from the Registrar of Companies to the Corporate Income Tax Agency.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.