A mobile app starts collecting precise location as soon as it installs, with no explanation of why until weeks later in a buried settings screen. Which transparency failure is most clearly illustrated?

Articles 12–14 require controllers to provide concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible information about processing. When a mobile app collects precise location from install time but explains why only weeks later in a buried settings screen, it fails the timing and quality of transparency: information should be available at the time personal data are obtained from the data subject (Article 13), not as an afterthought. Location data are revealing about home, work, worship, and civic participation; people need a clear purpose story before continuous tracking begins.

Appointing a lead supervisory authority is a one-stop-shop/cooperation issue for cross-border cases, not a prerequisite that substitutes for notice at collection. Adequacy decisions concern international transfers, not on-device GPS hardware lawfulness. EUIPO trademark registration of the app binary is unrelated to GDPR transparency duties.

Exam caveat: layered notices and just-in-time prompts can satisfy transparency if essential information is actually provided when collection starts; burying the only explanation weeks later does not. Also connect transparency failures to lawful-basis and consent quality—ungrounded location collection often fails both.

Operational check: ship a first-run location purpose notice (and permission UX) before precise location leaves the device for controller systems, align the privacy policy with real SDK behaviour, and test that a new install never uploads coordinates without the disclosed basis and user pathway.