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.
The closely followed case challenging the validity of Standard Contractual Clauses for the transfer of personal data outside the EEA to countries considered not to provide an adequate level of data protection, including the US, is progressing with a hearing coming up February 7th and schedule set for the proceedings, including amicus participation.
On January 26, 2017 Sidley hosted “Data Protection in Finance 2017: GDPR Readiness – Strategies and Practice” in association with DataGuidance. The interactive conference provided opportunities for networking with industry peers, as well as a full day of informative panel discussions focused on practical steps to achieve compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation’s (“GDPR”).
2016 was a year of seismic changes in the global data protection and privacy landscape. Here, we look back at the top ten events and issues that shaped 2016, and are poised to shape the year ahead as well.
Year In Review
1. GDPR Adoption
On April 14, the European Parliament voted to adopt the long-awaited EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), formally completing adoption of the GDPR. The GDPR was published in the Official Journal of the EU on May 25, 2016, giving companies and Member States until the May 25, 2018 effective date to implement the Regulation fully. In the wake of its adoption, businesses should have planning under way for implementation of the significantly expanded Regulation by evaluating whether they are subject to the expanded jurisdiction, and if so, completing an internal gap analysis of current data protection practices as compared with the new requirements and rights under the Regulation. Some of the key aspects to consider include data breach response planning under the new 72-hour notice requirement, reviewing existing data protection notices and consents for the more robust obligations, identifying current profiling activities and existing data protection and retention policies and procedures, ensuring privacy impact assessments are carried out where required, and evaluating whether there is an obligation to appoint a data protection officer. Despite the time until the effective date, the extensive preparation necessary to comply presents a challenge as companies around the world refocus resources to develop compliance plans.
2. Political Cyber Warfare
There is a new front in geopolitical battles. (more…)
*This post first appeared in Lawfare on January 17, 2017.
As the new administration takes office this week, we will start to see just how literally to take Donald Trump’s pronouncements and the promised targeting of his predecessor’s executive orders for immediate destruction. Trade policy appointments signal that statements about being aggressive against barriers to trade should be taken very literally. Wilbur Ross, the prospective Commerce Secretary; Peter Navarro, tapped to lead a new Trade Council on the White House staff; and Robert Lighthizer, designated U.S. Trade Representative, all have been vociferous in calling out China’s mercantilist policies and advocating a more transactional approach to breaking down market barriers in the world’s second largest national economy.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued, on December 21, 2016, its ruling in the joined cases, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post-och telestyrelsen (C-203/15), and Secretary of State for Home Department v. Tom Watson and Others (C-698/15), concerning the interpretation of EU’s Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC). Article 15(1) enables EU Member States to adopt measures that restrict privacy rights granted to users of Electronic Communication Services (“ECSs”) when they are “necessary, appropriate and proportionate… to safeguard national security”. Examples of ECSs include private and public companies in Internet, telecommunication, satellite and cable businesses. (more…)