OneDPDP · Consent operations
Marketing, HR, procurement, and alliances each maintained their own consent artifacts. Customers, partners, and vendors had no shared window into what they had agreed to, and privacy teams could not show regulators a live picture of acceptance versus withdrawal as campaigns and contracts evolved.
What changed
One hub where users, partners, and vendors see notices tied to their relationship—not siloed tools.
Accept, update, and revoke events stream into operational views as they happen.
Versioned notices and timestamps support DPDP accountability—not screenshots in email.
iConsentO captures engagement; OneDPDP maps it to processing records and rights workflows.
Without a single consent surface, the organization could not demonstrate unified notice and choice under DPDP expectations—especially when the same data categories flowed across channels and third parties.
Users saw website banners, employees signed HR attestations, and vendors accepted procurement clauses— but there was nowhere for the DPO to open one screen and answer “what is valid consent right now for this processing purpose across these groups?”
Acceptance and withdrawal were reconciled monthly from exports. Campaign and product teams changed processing faster than spreadsheets updated—creating gaps between operational reality and compliance reports.
Consent artifacts did not reliably link to records of processing. When DSAR or regulatory questions arrived, teams reconstructed the story manually—risking inconsistency.
iConsentO becomes the engagement layer for notices and receipts; OneDPDP holds the processing truth and connects consent state to governance, rights, and evidence.
Customers, employees, partners, and vendors appear in one consent inventory with shared metadata— purpose, channel, jurisdiction, and owner—so leadership sees a single narrative.
Operational views refresh as data principals exercise choice—closing the lag between product changes and what compliance can prove to auditors and boards.
Centralized notices and granular choices reduce friction while preserving evidence—aligned to how processing is described in OneDPDP.
Processing activities reference current consent posture, so DSAR and withdrawal workflows start from an accurate baseline.
DPO and legal teams monitor trends—new consents, revocations, and notice updates—without waiting for month-end reconciliation.
Connectors bring signals from campaigns and line-of-business tools so consent operations match how data is actually collected.
The program moved from fragmented artifacts to a governable consent operating model—credible for DPDP accountability and day-to-day decisions.
Users, partners, and vendors finally share a consistent view of notices and choices—reducing support escalations and audit confusion.
Accept and revoke activity feeds real-time views, so compliance and product teams align on current lawful basis for processing.
Versioned notices, timestamps, and RoPA linkage give regulators and boards a defensible thread from transparency to processing reality.
Walk through unified consent, RoPA linkage, and governance reporting mapped to DPDP expectations.
Platform modules Explore iConsentO All case studies