Following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) decision in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems on 16 July 2020 (“Schrems II”), the European Data Protection Supervisor, tasked with overseeing compliance with EU data protection laws by the EU institutions (“EUIs” and “EDPS”), issued guidance on 29 October 2020 on how EU institutions should comply with the Schrems II ruling (“EDPS Guidance”). In Schrems II, the CJEU invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield program and potentially required additional protections to be implemented when Standard Contractual Clauses are used. Both are key legal mechanisms used to enable transfers of personal data outside the EU.
Recent communications from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicate that the SEC is again considering registration of advisers located in the UK. The SEC had delayed approving UK and European Union (EU) investment managers’ applications for registration since the adoption of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), due to concerns that the GDPR would impede the SEC’s ability to collect data from, and supervise, these UK and EU investment managers.
In the wake of the recent Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in Schrems II, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs met in early September to discuss the long-awaited revision of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs). During the meeting, Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders expressed hope that revised SCCs would be finalised by the end of 2020.
After three years of discussions and in a final debate, the Swiss parliament has agreed on the final draft bill of a new and modernized data protection law.
In particular, the National Council and the Council of States found a compromise on the these outstanding issues: (more…)
In 2017, the Swiss government issued a draft bill for a new Swiss Data Protection Act (“nDPA”) with two main goals: (1) to enhance the level of protection of personal data provided in the current Swiss Data Protection Act which dates back to 1992 (largely, to align with the EU GDPR); and (2) to ensure that there is an “adequate” level of data protection to allow for the continued flow of personal data from the EEA to Switzerland.
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.
Following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) decision in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (“Schrems II”), the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (“FDPIC”) concluded in a position paper published on 8 September that the Swiss-US Privacy Shield no longer provides a valid mechanism for the transfer of personal data from Switzerland to the US.
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:
In a decision with significant implications for international trade and cross-border data flows, the EU’s highest court – the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on 16 July 2020 that a key legal mechanism (called the EU-US Privacy Shield program) used to enable transfers of personal data from the European Union (“EU”) was invalid, while also potentially requiring additional protections to be implemented when another key transfer mechanism (called Standard Contractual Clauses) is used. The case – Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland, Max Schrems (“Schrems II”) – considered the validity of the EU-US Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) program (a privacy certification made available for US organizations through an agreement between the European Commission and the US government) and Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCC”) (a form of international data transfer agreement made available for use by the European Commission).
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.