The English High Court recently handed down a judgment which limits the circumstances in which companies will be able to assert legal professional privilege in documents created as part of an internal investigation into potential criminal activity. The Court ruled that a claim for litigation privilege in the context of a criminal investigation will only be valid where, at the time that the relevant documents were created, the prospective defendant has sufficient knowledge about the matter to believe that there is a realistic prospect that a prosecutor will have enough material to proceed with a prosecution. The belief that a prosecutor will commence an investigation into a company is not sufficient to establish a claim for litigation privilege. The judge’s narrow interpretation of legal advice privilege also means that notes of interviews with employees will generally not attract privilege unless they provide “clues” as to aspects of legal advice given to the company. (more…)
The UK is expected to introduce its updated customer due diligence regime with effect from June 26 or shortly thereafter. The changes are wide-ranging and will affect virtually all financial services firms doing business in the UK.
The Government has published a near-final draft of the new legislation. To the extent they’ve not already started, affected firms should be planning for the changes that will be required to their existing policies, procedures and systems.
In this post, we highlight the key issues for financial services firms, and propose a series of action points that they may wish to consider over the next month as they move to implement the new requirements. (more…)
The EU’s Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) adopted, on 5 April 2017, final guidelines on the new right of data portability under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) (“GDPR”) which applies from 25 May 2018. (more…)
On April 18 in the DC office, Sidley hosted the firm’s third annual Privacy and Cybersecurity Roundtable for over 70 clients. Speakers included a senior representative of the European Data Protection Supervisor, senior officials from the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission, legal, policy and compliance leaders from Facebook and Gannett, along with several members of the firm’s privacy, securities law and governance groups. (more…)
On 27 April 2017 the German Parliament passed the new Federal Data Protection Act (the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or “new BDSG”) which from 25 May 2018 will replace the current German Data Protection Act. The new BDSG adapts German law in line with the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). The GDPR has direct effect in EU members states, but it allows member states to pass legislation which supplements the GDPR but is consistent with it.
On 6th April, 2017, the European Parliament adopted a resolution stating that there are deficiencies in the EU-US data transfer accord Privacy Shield which must be “urgently resolved” in order to give citizens and companies legal certainty. MEPs called on the EU Commission to conduct an assessment and to ensure that the Privacy Shield complies sufficiently with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and new EU data protection rules. (more…)
On February 2, the Italian Data Protection Authority, known as the “Garante,” imposed a fine of EUR 5,880,000 on a UK money transfer company that it found to be in violation of Italian data privacy rules. This is the largest ever publicly-known fine imposed by an EU data protection authority, and it approaches the level of fines that are likely to be imposed under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that will come into force in May 2018. Although the GDPR is not yet in force, the Garante’s enforcement action shows that European data protection authorities are willing to levy the kind of fines allowed by the GDPR.
Cybersecurity compliance is becoming increasingly complicated with multiple regulators across the globe weighing in on your legal requirements to manage cyber risk. If you have wondered how others are approaching their compliance strategy, you are not alone.
You are invited to participate in a brief survey regarding your business’s approach to cybersecurity legal requirements. Specifically, the purpose of this survey is to learn how businesses like yours are responding to cybersecurity legal requirements under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Network and Information Security Directive (NIS Directive). In particular, we are interested in whether and if so, how businesses in the U.S. and the EU and elsewhere are applying the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity to comply with these EU cybersecurity requirements. Understanding which standards business are applying in order to comply with these requirements could be helpful in encouraging consistency of cybersecurity frameworks in the U.S., the EU and other regions.
Please use the link provided below to access the survey which will take very few minutes to complete. We plan to publish the results in approximately six weeks. Please note that no individuals or specific businesses will be identified in any published results without their express consent.
CLICK HERE to begin the survey.
Thank you for your participation.
On 2 March 2017, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published detailed draft guidance on consent under the GDPR and has submitted it for public consultation. This is the ICO’s first piece of specific GDPR guidance published further to its overview of the GDPR published last January.
The guidance sets out the ICO’s interpretation of the new requirements to obtain valid consent under the GDPR including its view of the role of consent in the GDPR, the benefits of getting consent right and the penalties for getting it wrong. The guidance also explains: (i) when consent is required or appropriate (or not) and the alternative to consent; (ii) what constitutes valid consent under the GDPR with specific guidance on children’s consent and consent for research purposes; (iii) advice on how to obtain, record and manage consent; and (iv) a consent checklist.
The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) on Oct. 6, 2015, invalidating the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Decision (the Judgment) is a landmark judgment. Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner  ECLI: EU:C:2015:650. By voiding the legal basis for transatlantic data transfers for the 4,400 companies reliant on U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, the Judgment began what has been a seismic year for data protection and crossborder data transfers in the European Union, whose aftershocks will reverberate throughout 2017 and beyond.