“Can we delete this yet?”
It’s a simple question, but for anyone responsible for records retention, the answer isn’t always straightforward. One regulation may require you to keep a record for a minimum number of years, while a privacy law may require you to delete personal information once it’s no longer needed. And when your organization operates across multiple states or countries, figuring out which requirements apply can get complicated quickly.
That leaves records teams trying to avoid two costly mistakes: getting rid of something too soon or holding onto it for too long. Keeping everything “just in case” might feel like the safer option, but it actually increases legal exposure, storage costs, and privacy and security risks. Continue reading to learn how a comprehensive retention schedule can help you find the right balance between legal obligations and data minimization, especially when laws vary across countries.
Privacy regulations such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), and Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), along with a growing number of similar state and international laws, often appear to conflict with traditional records retention requirements.
What happens when different regulations point to different retention periods for the same information? It’s a challenge that becomes more complicated as organizations operate across jurisdictions. In this video, Access experts explain how to assess conflicting requirements and account for legitimate business needs when developing a defensible retention schedule.
In the United States, for example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) requires companies to retain financial and audit records for at least seven years in secure, unalterable formats. Similarly, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) mandates that certain healthcare records be kept for six years, though some state laws extend this period further. In contrast, GDPR emphasizes data minimization, requiring that personal data not be retained longer than necessary. This creates a need for organizations to balance minimum retention periods under laws like SOX and HIPAA with GDPR’s mandate to avoid unnecessary data storage, often treating these retention periods as maximums unless a compelling reason justifies longer retention.
That justification is often defined by statutes of limitations. These laws define the length of time allowable that someone can file a legal claim against you, and the statutes vary depending on the type of issue and the legal jurisdiction. Retaining records for the duration of the relevant statute can help an organization’s legal defensibility if a dispute arises. However, once that window closes, keeping those records may no longer be legally necessary and could become a liability.
Storing data for longer than necessary carries practical problems in addition to regulatory issues. Even with increasingly affordable cloud storage, managing outdated files depletes both time and resources. Older records are often kept in obsolete formats or systems, making them hard to access and increasing the risk of data loss. More importantly, the more data you hold, the bigger your cybersecurity risk. Every extra file and legacy system are another potential entry point for security data breaches.
To reduce these risks, organizations should build retention schedules based on verified legal requirements and review them regularly. Policies should reflect rules like SOX’s seven-year limit, HIPAA’s six-year rule, and GDPR’s “no longer than necessary” principle. By mapping these rules to specific record types and jurisdictions, you can reduce your liability and show a strong commitment to responsible data governance.
Even with a retention schedule in place, enforcing maximum retention periods can be difficult, especially when different departments have ongoing business reasons for keeping information. In this webinar excerpt, the panel discusses the challenge of applying retention requirements consistently while accounting for the realities of how records are used across an organization.
For additional insights on balancing privacy regulations with retention guidelines, watch the full webinar recording of “Mission Control for Information: Balancing Privacy in the Cosmos of Records Management.” During the webinar, experts from Access’ information governance team shared their perspectives on records retention, the rapidly evolving landscape of privacy regulations, and developments within the records management industry.
To learn more about how to address records retention, data privacy and security requirements more efficiently, request a call with an Access expert, or request a product demonstration of Access Unify® | Lifecycle.
Share