On 23 January 2019, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion on the interplay between the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Opinion addresses the appropriate legal basis for the processing of personal data in the context of clinical trials (primary use), and the secondary use of clinical trial data. (more…)
In December 2018, the European Commission published its report on the second annual review of the EU-US Privacy Shield (the “Report”). The Report concluded that the Privacy Shield “continues to ensure an adequate level of protection” for personal data transferred from the EU to the US. However, the Commission did identify a number of recommendations from the first annual review which still required implementation including the appointment by the US of a permanent ombudsperson to oversee complaints. To date, the U.S. has only appointed an interim ombudsperson (Manisha Singh). In the first annual review, the Commission did not set a deadline for the appointment. However, the latest review required an appointee to be identified by 28 February 2019 failing which the Commission will “consider taking appropriate measures.”
On January 25, 2019, the European Commission published a statement to mark Data Protection Day (January 28, 2019) which, this year, comes eight months after the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) on May 25, 2018.
The statement indicates that the European Commission considers the GDPR to have had a positive effect, in particular because European citizens are now more conscious of the importance of data protection and of their rights. The European Commission also notes that the Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) are enforcing the new rules and better coordinating their actions in the European Data Protection Board. (more…)
Under Article 35(3) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), organisations are required to conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) where they: (i) engage in a systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects of individuals, based on automated processing, and on which decisions are based that produce legal or other effects that concern the individual, or (ii) process special categories of personal data (e.g. health data) on a large scale or personal data relating to criminal convictions, or (iii) engage in a systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale. (more…)
When the GDPR came into effect on May 25, 2018, several European Member States had yet to put in place further implementing legislation. And while the data protection world watches and eagerly digests each new interpretive guidance from data protection authorities, Member State legislation provides additional interpretive tones of harmony or discord in data protection across Europe. After much delay and almost seven months after the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) came into force, the Organic Law 3/2018 on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights (“LOPDGDD”) – which implements the GDPR in Spain – entered into force on 7 December 2018. (more…)
*This article first appeared in the Hill.com on November 19, 2018
With the House having now flipped, policy consensus in Congress is not likely to get any easier. But there is one subject around which countries, companies, consumers and, yes, even Congress is increasingly converging. That issue is privacy. The new privacy zeitgeist follows years of data breaches as well as new concerns about invisible data collection, political micro-targeting and manipulation, the proliferation of internet-connected devices, and a potential lack of transparency in the decisions that machines increasingly make about us.
On November 23, 2018, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published draft guidelines seeking to clarify the territorial scope of the GDPR (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines have been eagerly awaited, particularly by controllers and processors outside of the EU looking for confirmation as to whether or not the EU data protection rules apply to them. The Guidelines largely reaffirm prior interpretations of the GDPR’s territorial application under Article (3)(1), and offer essential guidance with respect to the GDPR’s – heavily debated – extraterritorial application under Article (3)(2). The GDPR applies to companies established in the EU as well as companies outside of the EU that are “targeting” individuals in the EU (by offering them products or services) or monitoring their behavior (as far as that behavior takes place in the EU).
The proposed Guidelines are open for public consultation until January 18, 2019. It remains to be seen whether and how any outstanding issues will have been addressed upon conclusion of the consultation. (more…)
The fifth edition of The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review takes a look at the evolving global privacy, data protection and cybersecurity landscape in a time when mega breaches are becoming more common, significant new data protection legislation is coming into effect, and businesses are coming under increased scrutiny from regulators, Boards of Directors and their customers. Several lawyers from Sidley’s global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice have contributed to this publication. (more…)
European Digital Rights (EDRi), a digital user rights non-for-profit organisation, on 25 October 2018, launched an online platform, ‘GDPR Today’. In its first edition of the GDPR Today, the EDRi published statistics collected from eight EU Member States (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom). The statistics show that since the GDPR’s entry into force on 25 May 2018, data protection authorities (DPAs) have received thousands of complaints from EU individuals on the implementation of the GDPR by businesses and other organisations. Of note, the United Kingdom’s DPA, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), has topped the list of complaints received, with nearly 15,000 complaints. Germany and France follow in the rankings, with 6,555 complaints and 3,767 complaints received, respectively. However, the UK figure includes complaints filed with the ICO prior to the GDPR’s effective date. (more…)