On 2 September 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published draft guidelines on the concepts of controller and processor under the GDPR (Draft Guidelines). The Draft Guidelines are intended to expand on and ultimately replace the guidance issued by the former Article 29 Working Party in 2010 (WP29 Guidance). The Draft Guidelines should be reviewed carefully to assess whether: (i) the understanding of an organisation’s role as a controller, joint controller or processor should be revised; and (ii) changes to existing vendor processes and contracts are needed in light of the assessment of guarantees provided by vendors and the more detailed processing provisions and ongoing diligence now required.
The Draft Guidelines consist of two parts. The first part seeks to further clarify the meaning of these concepts—which are crucial in determining compliance responsibilities under the GDPR—by reference to various examples. The second part provides detailed guidance on their respective roles and responsibilities, and the relationships between them.
The Draft Guidelines, accessible here, are subject to public consultation until 19 October 2020.
On July 23, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published a set of important responses to a set of 12 frequently asked questions put forward to supervisory authorities regarding the recent Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) decision in Case C-311/18 – Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (“Schrems II”) (“FAQs”).
Below is a summary of the key take-aways from the EDPB’s FAQs, which is intended to address a range of topics including the lack of a grace period following the decision and the conditions surrounding the use of certain data transfer mechanisms:
The Supreme Court has recently granted Google permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Lloyd v Google LLC () EWCA Civ 1599). The class action brought against Google by Richard Lloyd, the former editor of consumer protection rights group “Which?”, relates to the alleged tracking of personal data by Google of 4.4 million iPhone users and subsequent selling of the users’ data to advertisers, without the users’ knowledge and consent. Google is now appealing the Court of Appeal’s decision granting Mr Lloyd permission to serve his representative action on Google. This landmark case is of particular importance as it has the potential to significantly widen the scope for claims to be brought in respect of a failure to protect data under the GDPR.
On 20 March 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) released a statement on the protection of personal data in connection with measures that public authorities and business organizations (including employers) are taking to address the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This statement is an extension of the statement released by the EDPB chair on 16 March 2020, (which can be accessed here). In its latest statement, the EDPB emphasises that EU data protection law (in particular, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”)) does not stand in the way of measures adopted to fight against COVID-19 – if these measures are necessary, proportionate and consistent with safeguards required under EU Member State laws. The EDPB statement also provides useful guidance for organisations to consider when adopting measures to lawfully process personal data during this time.
Overall, while EDPB statement may provide some reassurance to organizations with respect to COVID-19 measures, organizations will be advised to consider guidance issued by specific EU Member State data protection authorities as well. In particular, specific EU Member State data protection authorities have begun issuing COVID-19 guidance that is, at least in certain respects divergent: while certain data protection authorities are adopting a more restrictive approach (for example, the French CNIL), others are more permissible (for example, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office).
With the use of CCTV on the rise, it has become increasingly important for controllers to find a framework in which the conflicting rights of those who are subject to such surveillance are balanced. In its recent decision of TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA EU:C:2019:1064 (TK), the CJEU considered whether the processing carried out by CCTV cameras was necessary and proportionate for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the controller.
On 8 January 2020, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published a draft Direct Marketing Code of Practice (Draft Code) for public consultation. The Draft Code is intended to update existing guidance published pre-GDPR and provide clarity on certain important issues.
Summarised below are the key takeaways from the Draft Code: (more…)
On 28 November 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (the “WP29”) published detailed draft guidelines on consent under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which is to come into effect on 25 May 2018. The draft guidance has been submitted for public consultation for a six week period before being adopted.
The WP29 guidance on consent (“Consent Guidelines”) provides an analysis of the notion of consent under the GDPR as well as practical guidance for organisations on the requirements to obtain and demonstrate valid consent under the GDPR. (more…)