DSR Automation Platforms: 9 Tools Compared for 2026

Last updated: 3 November 2026

A DSR automation platform is software that takes a data subject request (under India's DPDP Act, a request by a Data Principal, the person the data is about, to exercise her rights) from intake to a closed, evidenced file. We think the intake form is the easy part. Requests stall when someone has to find the data, decide what to withhold and get processors to act.

Our DSR workflow guide for enterprise privacy teams covers the full stage by stage design, and from data discovery to DSR fulfilment covers how discovery feeds the response.

This roundup covers nine platforms in alphabetical order, described only from each vendor's public pages, for DPOs and privacy operations leads at Indian enterprises that also handle GDPR and CCPA requests. Disclosure: IQWorks makes ComplyIQ, one of the platforms below.

TL;DR

Nothing here is ranked. Each line, in alphabetical order, pairs a situation with what that vendor's own page says.

• BigID, if finding one person's data is your hardest step. Its page says discovery spans "structured, unstructured, cloud, SaaS, and on-prem systems".
• DataGrail, if most of your requests come from US consumers. Its solution pages cover GDPR alongside CCPA, CPRA, LGPD, the California Delete Act, Colorado CPA and Virginia VCDPA.
• IQWorks ComplyIQ, if you are India-first and want discovery launched from the request queue. The page names the DPDP Act and GDPR and lets you launch a DiscoverIQ scan "already set to the requester's name and email".
• Ketch, if you want opt-outs and consent state in the same record as rights requests. Its page says a Do Not Sell or Share request syncs with the consent banner.
• OneTrust, if you already run other OneTrust modules. Its request portal is integrated with its consent management platform and Trust Center.
• Osano, if you already run Osano's consent banner. Its FAQ says the request form can sit "in its cookie consent drawer".
• Securiti, if you want DSR discovery tied to a wider data security programme. Its page builds "real time people data graphs" across "structured and unstructured data systems".
• Transcend, if some of your systems have no API. Its page says it reaches "vendors with no API at all".
• TrustArc, if requests come from customers, employees and partners across several jurisdictions. Its page offers "jurisdiction-based due date tracking" and routes tasks to system owners.

At a glance

All entries summarise the linked vendor pages as checked on 23 October 2026, or on 3 November 2026 for Osano and TrustArc. The law column also draws on each vendor's other product and solution pages, checked on 24 October 2026 (3 November for Osano and TrustArc).

Our comparison of DSAR automation tools covers some of the same vendors. If you are new to the terms, our glossary entries on data subject rights and the data subject access request explain them.

Where Indian privacy teams struggle with DSR automation

The DPDP Rules, 2025 (G.S.R. 846(E)) were notified in the Gazette dated 13 November 2025. Rules 3, 5 to 16, 22 and 23 come into force on 13 May 2027 (Rule 1(4)), and that group includes Rule 14 on rights. Sections 6(6), 8, 11 and 12 of the Act, cited below, also apply from that date (G.S.R. 843(E), clause (c)). Three points need planning before you buy:

1. The clock. The DPDP Act and Rules set no day count for access or erasure requests, while GDPR Art. 12(3) and the CCPA do, so one queue runs on several clocks.
2. The sharing list. From 13 May 2027, a DPDP access response must name the other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors the data was shared with (s.11(1)(b)), and a scan of your own systems doesn't produce that list.
3. Processors. From the same date, the Data Fiduciary is responsible for processing done on its behalf (s.8(1)) and must make its processors erase (s.8(7)(b)), so the work goes on after your own systems are done.

How we chose for Indian privacy teams

We checked every platform, ComplyIQ included, for five signals:

1. Discovery reach: how the platform finds a person's data (connectors, scans, identity matching, on-premises support). s.11(1)(b) (from 13 May 2027) and GDPR Art. 15 need complete answers.
2. Workflow and SLA control: routing, task assignment, deadline tracking and extensions, for GDPR Art. 12(3), CCPA 45 plus 45 and your DPDP policy clock.
3. Identity verification: how identity is checked, and whether strength can vary by request (GDPR Art. 12(6), Rule 14(1)(b) and 14(5)).
4. Processor handling: whether the platform reaches processors and vendors and records their action (s.8(1) and s.8(7)(b) from 13 May 2027, GDPR Art. 28(3)(e)).
5. Audit evidence: logs of who did what and when, and exportable records (Rule 6(1)(e) and Rule 8(3), from 13 May 2027), so you can prove what you did.

Where a page says nothing on a signal, the demo questions cover it.

We read each vendor's own DSR product page on 23 October 2026 and its other product and solution pages on 24 October 2026, and described only what they say. We added Osano and TrustArc on 3 November 2026 and read their pages that day. We did not run hands-on tests. Marketing figures such as cost or time savings are left out, and so are pricing, reviews and customer names, which we did not source. The "Right for" and "Not right if" lines are our reading of each page. For laws, we list what the DSR page names and, separately, what the vendor's other product and solution pages name. A law counts as named for a vendor, IQWorks ComplyIQ included, only if one of that vendor's product or solution pages says the product supports it. A per-law page counts only when it is a product landing page for that law; regulation explainers don't count, even when they end with a call to action. Menus and educational articles don't count, and neither do use-case pages, help centre articles or release notes. Capabilities below are quoted or paraphrased from the linked vendor page as it read on 23 October 2026, or on 3 November 2026 for Osano and TrustArc.

1. BigID

BigID is a data discovery and governance vendor whose Data Rights Automation app ties request handling to discovered data and identity matching.

DSR capabilities

The BigID Data Rights Automation page covers "access, deletion, correction, portability, and opt-out requests". It collects requests "from portals, email, phone, physical mail, and internal submission channels", and its verify step will "validate identity, request type, residency, and applicable obligations". Discovery spans "structured, unstructured, cloud, SaaS, and on-prem systems", with identity correlation to individuals. It validates deletion and maintains "an auditable record". Its FAQ names GDPR, CPRA, CCPA and LGPD. BigID's privacy and compliance solution page names GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, LGPD, PIPEDA and the EU AI Act. Its LGPD compliance page says BigID "helps organizations support Brazil LGPD compliance", and its pages on CCPA, CPRA, PIPEDA, South Africa's POPIA, Saudi and UAE PDPL, Singapore and Thailand PDPA, Virginia VCDPA, HIPAA and GLBA make the same kind of claim for each law. Its India page, titled PDPB, lists "Access, correction, erasure, and portability workflows" under Data Principal rights automation.

Questions for the demo

Show a DPDP access response with the s.11(1)(b) list of other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors; show the evidence exported after a deletion is validated; show how processors are instructed and how their confirmation is logged.

Summary

Right for: teams whose hardest problem is finding one person's data across cloud, SaaS and on-premises systems, which the page says its discovery spans.

Not right if: you want request handling without deploying BigID discovery; the page says BigID "connects rights fulfillment directly to discovered data and identity context", so start with DataGrail if integrations alone will do.

2. DataGrail

DataGrail is a privacy platform whose Request Manager handles consumer rights requests.

DSR capabilities

The DataGrail Request Manager page describes branded request forms that feed one dashboard, and says its "patented Smart Verification" uses "pre-existing data to authenticate user identities". It orchestrates "deletion, access, and opt-out requests" and offers "privacy operations on top of any internal and third-party system". Teams can collaborate "with internal teams and third-party vendors with in-platform project management". The product copy names no law. DataGrail's solution pages cover GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, the California Delete Act (DROP), Colorado CPA and Virginia VCDPA, and its data inventory page adds LGPD; we found no India page.

Questions for the demo

How is correction handled, since the page lists deletion, access and opt-out; can a DPDP request run on its own policy clock; how are vendor confirmations stored.

Summary

Right for: teams with many SaaS and third-party systems and a US consumer request load, which matches the US state laws on its solution pages.

Not right if: you need correction confirmed before a demo. The page lists "deletion, access, and opt-out requests"; the BigID and Ketch pages list correction, so ask DataGrail to show one.

3. IQWorks ComplyIQ

Disclosure: IQWorks makes ComplyIQ. Its entry uses the same method as the others: our own public pages, checked on 23 October 2026.

ComplyIQ is the privacy compliance product in the IQWorks platform, which shares a data model with DiscoverIQ for data discovery.

DSR capabilities

The DSR automation solution page describes a branded request form at your own URL, with every request landing in one ComplyIQ queue. Requesters confirm their email with a one-time code before a request is accepted, and CAPTCHA keeps bots out. The queue shows each request's type, status, owner and age, and flags anything due soon or overdue. From a request you can launch a DiscoverIQ scan "already set to the requester's name and email", and email the requester and processors from inside the request so the thread stays on record. The page says ComplyIQ handles every right under GDPR and the DPDP Act, and sends consent withdrawals to the ConsentIQ preference centre.

Source: IQWorks, DSR automation solution page, iqworks.ai/solutions/dsr-automation-solution

The complex DSR workflows use case adds that "the requester's jurisdiction sets the deadline, scope, and response format automatically across DPDP Act, GDPR, and CCPA", that ComplyIQ "runs identity verification proportionate to the sensitivity of the data being requested", and that "every decision and action is recorded to a defensible, timestamped audit trail". The ComplyIQ product overview names the DPDP Act, GDPR, PDPL, CCPA and LGPD among the laws it supports, and its FAQ says the DSR portal "handles identity verification, tracks SLA deadlines, and provides secure encrypted delivery". The DiscoverIQ product page says that for on-premises systems, "we provide secure agents that scan locally and send only metadata to the cloud".

Questions for the demo

Run a DPDP access request and show the s.11(1)(b) sharing list; show how the DPDP policy clock is labelled; show the processor email thread and closure record.

Summary

Right for: India-first enterprises preparing for 13 May 2027 that also answer GDPR requests and want discovery and the request queue in one place. The solution page names both the DPDP Act and GDPR.

Not right if: most of your volume is CCPA requests; the solution page sets out GDPR and DPDP rights and leaves the CCPA clock to the use case page, so ask to see a CCPA request run end to end.

4. Ketch

Ketch is a consent and privacy platform with a DSR automation module that shares its permissions record with consent management.

DSR capabilities

The Ketch DSR automation page takes requests "through branded portals, in-product flows, or API". Its AuthenticatedID "matches verification strength to the jurisdiction and request type". Requests are "routed by region, type, system and owner", driven by its live data map, and Identity Sync "links first-party and third-party identifiers into one record". It says deletions and opt-outs "apply to data already collected", that a Do Not Sell or Share request syncs with the consent banner, and that it keeps "timestamped audit logs tied to the individual". It names GDPR, CCPA and LGPD in one workflow. Ketch's Do Not Sell or Share page says "Ketch automates CCPA/CPRA Do Not Sell, from banner to backend", its health data page says "Ketch codifies HIPAA, HITECH, GDPR, CPRA, and U.S. state privacy laws into automated workflows", and its risk management page offers templates for "obligations under the EU AI Act". The Do Not Sell or Share page also routes the opt-out laws of Colorado, Virginia, Texas and Montana. We found no India page; Ketch's "DPDPA" explainer is about Delaware's law.

Questions for the demo

How a DPDP access request is configured; what the processor instruction and confirmation look like; how verification strength is set for an Indian requester.

Summary

Right for: teams that want opt-outs and consent state kept in the same record as rights requests. The page says a Do Not Sell or Share request syncs with the consent banner.

Not right if: your consent platform is separate and staying; the page's main point is requests sharing a record with Ketch's own consent banner.

5. OneTrust

OneTrust is a broad privacy and trust platform with a dedicated DSR automation product.

DSR capabilities

The OneTrust DSR automation page says it automates "request intake, identity verification, personal data discovery and deletion, redaction, and secure response", including "legal hold checks". Its secure customer portal is integrated with its consent management platform and Trust Center. The page names GDPR and CCPA. OneTrust's India DPDPA solution page covers "automating consent and Data Principal rights requests", and its other solution pages include GDPR, CCPA and CPRA, US state laws, LGPD, PIPEDA, POPIA, Saudi Arabia's PDPL, HIPAA and the EU AI Act.

Questions for the demo

Show discovery across the systems you actually run, including on-premises; show how legal hold checks interact with an erasure under s.12(3); show a DPDP request end to end.

Summary

Right for: organisations already running other OneTrust modules that want DSRs in the same suite, since the portal is integrated with its consent management platform and Trust Center.

Not right if: you don't run other OneTrust modules; the page's integration points are its own CMP and Trust Center.

6. Osano

Osano is a privacy platform whose Subject Rights Management product handles rights requests alongside its consent tools.

DSR capabilities

The Osano subject rights management page says "Users can start a request with one click", and that "Localization and ID verification ensure you don't accept any inappropriate or fraudulent requests." Geolocation shows each user "compliant forms with correct options for that region". It automates "task assignments and packaging", spots duplicates and allows "human intervention where you need it". Data goes out through a "secure messaging portal", and it uses "automated data discovery to quickly find personal data throughout the business to fulfill requests". Its FAQ says the form can sit "in its cookie consent drawer", that you can "configure jurisdiction-specific rights, response timing, notifications, and geolocation rules", and that platforms "like Osano support GDPR (EU), CCPA/CPRA". The page also offers a "No Fines, No Penalties" Guarantee; Osano's guarantee page limits it to regulator fines "directly caused by the Osano Platform", for enterprise-level customers, with a cap tied to fees paid. Osano's solution pages for GDPR, CCPA and CPRA cover rights request automation for each. Its data privacy compliance page says the platform "manages data compliance" for laws including LGPD "and all state laws", although the DSR page itself calls the product only "flexible for" LGPD. We found no India page.

Questions for the demo

Can a DPDP request run on its own policy clock using the jurisdiction settings; how a DPDP access response lists other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors; how processor confirmations are logged; what the guarantee's terms cover.

Summary

Right for: teams already running Osano's consent banner that want rights requests started from the same drawer, with forms localised by region.

Not right if: you need DPDP requests shown working before you buy; the pages we read name GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, LGPD and US state laws but not the DPDP Act, so ask Osano to run a DPDP request in the demo.

7. Securiti

Securiti is a data security and governance vendor with a DSR automation product built on its data discovery.

DSR capabilities

The Securiti DSR automation page lists customisable DSR forms, identity verification and predefined workflows, plus "ML Based Robotic Automation". It builds "real time people data graphs" across "structured and unstructured data systems". Its DSR workbench "provides up-to-date regulatory guidelines, correlated with DSR requests" with a "dynamic audit log", and it shares "encrypted responses" with the data subject. No law is named in the page body. Securiti's DPDP Act solution page lists "DSR automation" among the ways it supports the Act, under headings such as "Automate Consumer Access Requests", and its other solution pages, about 120 on laws in all, include GDPR, UK GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, LGPD, PIPEDA, PIPL, Japan's APPI, the Saudi PDPL, the EU AI Act and US state laws.

Questions for the demo

Which laws the workbench guidance covers, including the DPDP Act, and how the DPDP solution page's DSR mapping shows up in the workbench; how processors are instructed; what the audit log exports.

Summary

Right for: teams with structured and unstructured data systems that want DSR discovery tied to a wider data security programme.

Not right if: you want a standalone request tool; the page ties DSR discovery to Securiti's wider data security platform.

8. Transcend

Transcend is a privacy infrastructure vendor whose DSR automation acts on systems found by its data discovery.

DSR capabilities

The Transcend DSR automation page says it handles "intake, verification, and fulfillment across every connected system", reaching "vendors with no API at all". Its FAQ lists "access, deletion, correction, and opt-out requests". It resolves one identifier into the identifiers each system needs, and supports both controller and processor relationships, including requests forwarded by businesses you process data for. Sombra, a self-hosted gateway, keeps personal data encrypted under your keys. It says "every action is logged and every deadline is tracked". The FAQ names GDPR, CCPA/CPRA and LGPD. Transcend's solution pages cover GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, LGPD, Virginia CDPA, Colorado CPA, the EU AI Act and US sector laws such as HIPAA and GLBA, and we found no India page.

Questions for the demo

How a DPDP access response lists other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors; how systems without an API are handled in practice; what the deadline view shows for a policy clock.

Summary

Right for: teams with many internal systems, including some without an API, that want fulfilment carried out in the systems themselves.

Not right if: most of your data sits in a few systems with APIs; the page's distinguishing point is reaching systems and vendors without one.

9. TrustArc

TrustArc is a privacy programme management vendor whose Individual Rights Manager handles data subject requests.

DSR capabilities

The TrustArc Individual Rights Manager page covers "access, deletion, correction, portability, restriction, objection, and applicable opt-out requests" from customers, employees and partners. Intake templates "automatically adapt to local regulations and browser language detection", and you can configure handling "by user type (customer, employee, partner) and jurisdiction". It routes each request and "creates tasks for the appropriate system owners", with "jurisdiction-based due date tracking". Tasks can land in Jira, ServiceNow, Salesforce or Gmail, and no-code integrations "help locate data and trigger downstream actions in connected systems". Identity is checked by "Email-based verification and integrated identity checks", logs "capture how each request was handled", and "PII hashing provides an additional layer of protection for request data". The page names no law as supported. TrustArc's DPDP Act page offers to "Streamline intake, validation, and fulfillment of data subject requests" and says TrustArc "supports global privacy regulations including DPDP Act, GDPR, CCPA, and other regulations in one unified privacy platform". Its PrivacyCentral page, for a separate compliance management product, lists PIPEDA, Quebec Law 25, LGPD, China's PIPL, Japan's APPI, Singapore's PDPA and US state laws in its library. Both pages describe coverage across TrustArc's platform; neither ties a law to Individual Rights Manager.

Questions for the demo

Show a DPDP request run through the workflow the DPDP Act page describes, with the s.11(1)(b) sharing list; show how a due date is set for a DPDP policy clock; show a system owner task closing in Jira or ServiceNow and the log it leaves.

Summary

Right for: teams handling customer, employee and partner requests across several jurisdictions that want tasks to land in queues their system owners already watch.

Not right if: your systems lack the integrations it relies on; the page finds data through built-in search and connected systems, so check coverage of your own estate.

What end-to-end DSR automation has to cover

A platform earns the word "automation" when it handles the steps after the form, from publishing how to make a request to keeping the logs.

Publishing how to make a request

From 13 May 2027, Rule 14(1) requires the Data Fiduciary (the organisation that decides why and how personal data is processed) to publish "the details of the means using which a Data Principal may make a request" and the particulars, "such as the username or other identifier", needed to identify her (DPDP Rules, 2025, Rule 14(1), MeitY). Rule 14(5) defines an identifier as a sequence of characters you issued, such as a customer identification file number, email address, mobile number or licence number. The platform should let you verify against identifiers you already hold, instead of asking for new documents.

Verifying identity proportionately

Under GDPR, the controller (the GDPR term for the organisation that decides purposes and means) may ask for more information only "where the controller has reasonable doubts concerning the identity of the natural person making the request" (GDPR Art. 12(6), EUR-Lex). A platform with one fixed verification level for every request either over-collects or under-protects.

Source: GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 12(6) (EUR-Lex, Official Journal L 119, p. 40)

Finding the data and the sharing record

From 13 May 2027, a DPDP access response must include "the identities of all other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors with whom the personal data has been shared" with a description of what was shared (DPDP Act, 2023, s.11(1)(b), MeitY). A Data Processor is anyone processing personal data on the Data Fiduciary's behalf. Discovery that finds records but not the sharing history only answers half the request.

Making processors act

From 13 May 2027, Section 8(1) keeps the Data Fiduciary responsible for processing "undertaken by it or on its behalf by a Data Processor". Section 8(7)(b) requires it to "cause its Data Processor to erase any personal data that was made available" to that processor. GDPR has matching duties: the processor contract must require the processor to help the controller answer rights requests (Art. 28(3)(e)), and the controller must tell recipients about rectification or erasure (Art. 19). The platform should send the instruction, record it and track the processor's confirmation.

Source: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 8(1) (MeitY, p. 7)

Source: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 8(7) (MeitY, pp. 7 to 8)

Putting a contact in every response

From 13 May 2027, Rule 9 requires every Data Fiduciary to "mention in every response to a communication for the exercise of the rights of a Data Principal" the business contact information of its Data Protection Officer, if applicable, or of a person who can answer questions about the processing. Response templates should carry this by default.

Source: Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, Rule 9 (MeitY, G.S.R. 846(E), p. 27)

Keeping logs

From 13 May 2027, Rule 6(1)(e) requires a Data Fiduciary to retain logs and personal data "for a period of one year" for detecting and investigating unauthorised access, "unless compliance with any law for the time being in force requires otherwise". From the same date, Rule 8(3) requires it to retain personal data, associated traffic data and other logs of processing done by it or on its behalf by a Data Processor "for a minimum period of one year from the date of such processing", for the purposes in the Seventh Schedule, and then to erase them "unless further retention is required for compliance with any other law for the time being in force or notified by the Government". Its first illustration says this applies "even if X deletes her account". Section 12(3), in force from the same date, requires a Data Fiduciary to erase personal data on request "unless retention of the same is necessary for the specified purpose or for compliance with any law for the time being in force" (DPDP Act, 2023, s.12(3), MeitY). The Act and Rules do not say how Rule 8(3) and s.12(3) apply together. Check this with your legal counsel for your setup.

Source: Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, Rule 6(1)(e), clause (e) shown without the Rule 6(1) lead-in (MeitY, G.S.R. 846(E), p. 26)

Consent withdrawal is a related but separate flow. From 13 May 2027, Section 6(6) requires the Data Fiduciary to stop processing, and to make its processors stop, within a reasonable time after withdrawal. Our guide to DPDP consent records covers that record.

DSR deadlines by law

The three laws run on different clocks, and the DPDP clock needs the most care.

On DPDP, the Press Information Bureau's explainer of 17 November 2025 (PRID 2190655) says Data Fiduciaries "are required to address all requests related to access, correction, updating or erasure within a maximum of ninety days" (PIB, 17 November 2025). That is government guidance. The Act and Rules set no day count for s.11 or s.12 requests. The only ninety-day ceiling in the Rules is for grievances: from 13 May 2027, Rule 14(3) has each Data Fiduciary and Consent Manager publish its own grievance response period, a reasonable period not exceeding ninety days.

The CCPA periods come from the California Attorney General's consumer guidance (CCPA page, California AG).

How to choose by team profile

Start from the request you find hardest today, then test that request in every demo.

India-first enterprise preparing for 13 May 2027. You need access responses that list sharing (s.11(1)(b)), a Rule 9 contact in every reply and a policy clock you can label as guidance. Ask each vendor to run a DPDP request live, because none of the DSR pages we read shows a DPDP request, even where the vendor has a separate India page. The DPDP RACI helps you assign who owns each step.

Multinational with GDPR and CCPA volume. Look for a jurisdiction setting on each request that drives the clock, the extension notice and the response format. Test a request that falls under two laws and check the platform applies the stricter clock.

Lean team with many SaaS systems. Prioritise connectors and vendor reach over custom workflow design. Check how the platform handles a system with no API and who does the work when automation stops.

Regulated sector with on-premises data. Ask how discovery reaches on-premises systems, what leaves your network, and how deletion is validated. Check that log retention can meet Rule 6(1)(e) and Rule 8(3), which apply from 13 May 2027.

Questions to ask in every demo:

• Show a DPDP access request answered in full, including the list of other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors.
• Show how the deadline is set for a DPDP request, given that the Act and Rules set no day count.
• Show the grievance clock separately from the request clock.
• Show a processor being instructed to erase, and the logged confirmation.
• Show how verification strength changes for a sensitive request.
• Export the audit trail for one closed request.

Checklist before you buy

• The platform lets you publish request means and the identifiers you need (Rule 14(1)).
• Verification uses identifiers you already issue (Rule 14(5)) and can ask for more only when there is doubt (GDPR Art. 12(6)).
• Each request records jurisdiction, and jurisdiction sets the clock.
• The DPDP clock is configurable and labelled as guidance, not statute.
• Grievances have their own clock, with your published period of ninety days or less (Rule 14(3)).
• GDPR extensions trigger a notice with reasons within the first month (Art. 12(3)).
• CCPA requests track 45 days and the 45 day extension notice.
• Access responses can list other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors the data was shared with (s.11(1)(b)).
• Processor erasure instructions and confirmations are sent and logged (s.8(7)(b)).
• Every response template carries the Rule 9 contact.
• Logs are kept for at least one year (Rule 6(1)(e) and Rule 8(3), from 13 May 2027), and your erasure position is agreed with counsel.
• Consent withdrawals route to your consent system, not the DSR queue.

Choosing a DSR automation platform

Pick the request that causes you the most work today and make every vendor run it live. For an Indian enterprise that is usually a DPDP access request with a full sharing list, plus a processor erasure with logged confirmation. Then check deadlines: a labelled DPDP policy clock, a separate grievance clock, the GDPR extension notice and the CCPA 45 plus 45 periods. Finally, export one closed request's audit trail and read it as a regulator would.

If a DPDP request with a full sharing list is your hardest case, ComplyIQ is the IQWorks product for that job. Its DSR solution page offers "One queue for every rights request, with owners, deadlines and overdue flags" and lets you "Open a DiscoverIQ scan pre-filled with the requester's details." That page sets out rights under GDPR and the DPDP Act, so if you also carry CCPA volume, bring a CCPA request as well. To run your own hardest request through it, book a ComplyIQ session with our team.

FAQ

What is the best DSR automation platform?

There is no single best platform, because the right one depends on where your data sits and which laws apply. Test each shortlisted platform on your hardest request. For an Indian enterprise, that is usually a DPDP access request that must name every Data Fiduciary and Data Processor the data was shared with, as s.11(1)(b) will require from 13 May 2027, plus a GDPR request on the Art. 12(3) clock.

What is the deadline for a DSR under the DPDP Act?

The Act and Rules set no day count for access or erasure requests under s.11 or s.12. The PIB explainer of 17 November 2025 says Data Fiduciaries "are required to address all requests related to access, correction, updating or erasure within a maximum of ninety days". Treat that as guidance. Rule 14(3) separately caps your published grievance period at ninety days, and Rule 14 applies from 13 May 2027.

What should DSR automation do beyond intake?

It should find the person's data and the record of who it was shared with, because from 13 May 2027 a DPDP access response must list other Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors (s.11(1)(b)). It should instruct processors to erase and log their confirmation (s.8(7)(b)). It should also keep processing logs for at least one year under Rule 8(3) from 13 May 2027, with your erasure position settled with counsel.

Can one platform handle DPDP, GDPR and CCPA requests?

Yes, if each request carries its jurisdiction and the jurisdiction sets the clock and scope. GDPR allows one month plus two further months (Art. 12(3)). CCPA allows 45 days plus 45. The DPDP Act sets no day count, so you configure a policy clock. Where a request falls under more than one law, apply the strictest clock and include every required disclosure.

How should a DSR platform verify identity?

Proportionately. Under DPDP, Rule 14(1)(b) lets you ask for the particulars, such as a username or identifier, that you need under your terms of service, and Rule 14(5) lists identifiers like email address or customer file number. Under GDPR Art. 12(6), ask for more only when you have reasonable doubts about who is asking. A platform should support both.

What is the difference between a DSR and a DSAR?

A DSAR, or data subject access request, asks only for access: under GDPR, a copy of the data and details of its processing (Art. 15). DSR is the wider term for any rights request, including correction, erasure and objection. Under the DPDP Act the rights are access (s.11), correction and erasure (s.12), grievance redressal (s.13) and nomination (s.14).

Related reading

For platforms that cover the wider DPDP programme, see the 11 best DPDPA compliance platforms.