In the immediate aftermath of the Schrems II judgement, Bruno Gencarelli (Head of the International data flows and protection unit at the European Commission) said that “Schrems II is data transfers from theory to practice”. There have been several major developments over the last couple of weeks (explained below) which show this to be an accurate assessment. Companies can no longer “do nothing” in the hope that the difficult implications will go away. Regulators are starting to investigate. Complaints are being submitted. A taskforce has been set up. The Swiss data protection authority (DPA) also thinks Privacy … Continue Reading
Topic: Regulatory response
Subscribe to Regulatory response RSS feedAlgorithmic Decision-making and the UK ICO’s Guidance on AI
Posted in General, Regulatory responseAlgorithmic decision-making has been in the news of late. From Ofqual’s downgrading of students’ A-level results[1] to the complaint lodged by None of Your Business’ against the credit rating agency CRIF for failing (amongst other things) to be transparent about the reasons why a particular applicant had been given a negative rating[2]. We have been reminded of the potential backlash that could result from decisions that are perceived as incorrect or unfair by algorithms where the workings of which are largely unknown to the individuals they affect. This presents challenges for organisations which are increasingly adopting Artificial … Continue Reading
Schrems II landmark ruling: Privacy Shield is invalid, Standard Contractual Clauses are valid but court puts obligations on parties and authorities
Posted in Data breach, Enforcement, General, Regulatory responseThe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has today published its decision in the landmark case, known as Schrems II. While Privacy Shield has been completely invalidated, the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) remain valid, but the court has emphasised obligations on the parties to the SCCs and Data Protection Authorities which have the potential to restrict when they can be used.
Here is a very short first summary:
- Privacy Shield is invalid. This is on the basis that the access and use of EU personal data by US authorities are not restricted in a way
Cell phones, robocalls, and text messages – two pronouncements
On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the federal law that prohibits “robocalls” to cell phones but struck down the exception for collection of debts owed to the federal government. (Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, No. 19–631 (July 6, 2020) (2020 WL 3633780).) Previously, on June 25, a Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission issued some guidance on what constitutes an “autodialer” (or “automatic telephone dialing system“—“ATDS”) relating to that law’s prohibition on text messages. (In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, P2P Alliance Petition … Continue Reading
Thailand Personal Data Protection Law
Posted in Regulatory response
Background
The Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) was published on 27 May 2019 in Thailand’s Government Gazette and became effective the following day. However, most of the operational provisions, including provisions relating to the rights of a data subject, the obligations of a data controller and the penalties for non-compliance, will become effective on 27 May 2020, 1 year after the PDPA is published.
The PDPA is under the supervision of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the main supervising authority of the PDPA is the Office of Data Protection Committee (Office… Continue Reading
Application by Privacy Commissioner To Shed Light on Judicial Enforcement of PIPEDA
Recent legal action by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) will shed light on the Federal Court’s willingness to enforce and monitor compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). On February 6, the OPC filed a notice of application (the Application) in the Federal Court seeking a declaration that Facebook has contravened PIPEDA and various orders that would compel Facebook to bring itself into compliance. [1] Organizations governed by PIPEDA should keep a close eye on the Court’s inquiry as well as any eventual order enforcing compliance with the Act.… Continue Reading
Changes to Hong Kong’s data protection law discussed by government panel
The discussion paper on the proposed changes to Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.486) (the PDPO) was debated by the Legislative Council’s Panel on Constitutional Affairs’ (the Panel) on 20 January. The proposals set out in LC Paper. No. CB(2) 512/19-20(03) (the Paper) are summarised in our earlier post.… Continue Reading
Discussion paper published on Hong Kong’s data protection law
Posted in Regulatory responseWritten by Partner Anna Gamvros and Associate Libby Ryan, both based in the Hong Kong office.
Earlier this week, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (the CMAB) released its discussion paper (LC Paper. No. CB(2) 512/19-20(03) (the Paper) seeking the Legislative Council’s Panel on Constitutional Affairs’ (the Panel) views on proposed changes to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.486) (the PDPO). The Paper was released on Monday 13th January, as part of an agenda for the Panel meeting which was held on Monday, 20th January, and follows proposals by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Commissioner) to … Continue Reading
Turkish Data Protection Board announces extension of VERBİS registration deadline – once again
Posted in Regulatory responseThe Turkish Data Protection Board (“Board”) announced the extension of VERBİS registration deadline until June 30, 2020 for:
- Turkish data controllers with more than 50 employees annually or whose annual total financial statement exceeds TL 25,000,000 (approx. USD 4.2 million), and
- Data controllers located abroad.
Turkey’s data protection legislation on data controller registry to impact data controllers outside of Turkey
Posted in Regulatory response
Obligations
Turkey’s data protection legislation (TDPL) requires data controllers to notify the Turkish DPA of their processing activities. Unless exempt from the requirement, all data controllers (individuals and legal entities) who process personal data in Turkey must be registered with the Turkish DPA’s Register of Data Controllers Information System (VERBİS), prior to processing any personal data.
Data controllers which fail to fulfil this obligation may be subject to an administrative fine of an amount between TL 20,000–1,000,000 (approximately USD 3,600-180,000). Such fines will be issued at the discretion of the Data Protection Board and will be determined based on the … Continue Reading
FTC to levy unprecedented $US5bn fine against Facebook
Posted in Data breach, Regulatory responseOn Friday, July 12, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Trade Commission and Facebook reached a settlement to resolve Facebook’s privacy issues surrounding the Cambridge Analytica disclosure discovered last year. The settlement imposes a US$5 billion dollars on the tech giant, which represents roughly 9% of Facebook’s total yearly revenue and is the largest civil and privacy fine ever imposed by the FTC. The fine largely surpasses the FTC’s previous imposed fine in a privacy action, when the FTC fined Google US$22.5 million to settle claims it misrepresented privacy assurances to Safari users.… Continue Reading
ICO’s draft Age Appropriate Design Code could seriously impact processing of under 18’s personal data
Posted in Regulatory response
On 15 April 2019, the ICO opened a public consultation on a draft code of practice titled Age Appropriate Design (the “Code”). The Code will remain open for public consultation until 31 May 2019.
The consultation document is described as a “code of practice for online services likely to be accessed by children.” However, its potential impact is in fact wider, and is perhaps better described as applying to all online services that are not demonstrably unlikely to be accessed by children, which it controversially defines as individuals under 18. For this reason, the Code in its current form … Continue Reading
EDPB issues new opinion on interplay between Clinical Trials Regulation and the GDPR
On January 23, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued an opinion on the interplay between the Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) and the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). See our previous blog posts on the GDPR here and here. The opinion also addresses GDPR requirements regarding (1) the legal basis for processing personal data in the course of a clinical trial protocol (primary use) and (2) the further use of clinical trial data for other scientific purposes (secondary use).
Even though the CTR already entered into force on June 16, 2014, the regulation’s application depends on the … Continue Reading
First multi-million Euro GDPR fine: Google LLC fined €50 million under GDPR for transparency and consent infringements in relation to use of personal data for personalized ads
On January 21,2019 the French data protection authority (the CNIL) imposed a major fine on the U.S. Google entity, Google LLC. It follows two complaints filed as soon as the GDPR came into force by two consumer rights associations, None of Your Business and La Quadrature du Net.
We focus here on four key aspects of the decision: (a) why the Irish Data Protection Commission (Irish DPC) did not take the case; (b) the consent mechanism failings; (c) the privacy policy failings; and (d) the amount of the fine.… Continue Reading
European Commission adopts adequacy decision on Japan
Posted in Regulatory responseOn January 23rd 2019, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision in relation to the export of personal data from the European Union (EU) to Japan. Concurrently, Japan has adopted an equivalent decision in relation to the export of personal data from Japan to the EU. Such mutual decision is the result of two-years of dialogue and negotiations between both parties.
According to a joint statement issued by Věra Jourová (Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality) and Haruhi Kumazawa (Commissioner of the Personal Information Protection Commission of Japan), “these mutual adequacy findings create the world’s largest … Continue Reading
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds common law duty for employers extends to protecting sensitive employee information
On November 21, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court broke new ground by holding that employers have a legal duty to take reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information from cyberattacks. Dittman v. UPMC, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 6072199 (Pa. Nov. 21, 2018).… Continue Reading
EDPB clarifies territorial scope of the GDPR
On November 23, 2018, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued highly anticipated draft Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) on the territorial scope of the GDPR. See our previous blog posts on the GDPR here and here. The Guidelines provide some clarity around the scope and applicability of the GDPR to data Controllers and Processors both inside and outside the EU.… Continue Reading
New China Guideline for Internet Personal Information Security Protection
On November 30, 2018 the Cyber Security Protection Bureau, under the auspices of the PRC Ministry of Public Security (the “MPS”), issued a draft Guideline for Internet Personal Information Security Protection (the “Guideline”) along with a request for public comments.… Continue Reading
California Consumer Privacy Act blog series: Covered entities
This is the Data Protection Report’s second post in a series of blog posts that will break down the major elements of the CCPA which will culminate in a webinar on the CCPA in October. This blog focuses on covered entities. Stay tuned for additional posts and information about our upcoming webinar on the CCPA.
California’s new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) grants California residents extensive new privacy rights. One of the more significant aspects of the law however, is the number of business entities to which it applies. Companies around the world must comply with the … Continue Reading
Overview of Thailand Draft Personal Data Protection Act
Posted in Regulatory response
Data protection laws in Asia continue to be introduced and updated. One of the most recent developments in South East Asia is in Thailand. On 22 May 2018, the Thai Cabinet approved in principle a revised draft of Thailand’s first personal data protection act (Draft Act). This Draft Act is currently under consideration by the Council of State.
Thailand currently does not have any specific law regulating data protection. The Office of the Prime Minister first published the Draft Act in 2014. The Draft Act has undergone several rounds of changes and this article aims to give a high level … Continue Reading
The European Parliament asks for the suspension of the privacy shield
Posted in Regulatory response
On July 5, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution, asking the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, to suspend the Privacy Shield framework. The EU-US Privacy Shield, designed by the US Department of Commerce and the European Commission, provides a mechanism for companies to transfer personal data between the EU and the US while remaining compliant with EU data protection laws.
The European Commission passed the data-sharing privacy framework on July 12, 2016, after its precursor, Safe Harbor, was struck down by the European Court of Justice on October 6, 2015.
Since the European Parliament’s resolution is … Continue Reading
US states pass data protection laws on the heels of the GDPR
Several U.S. states have recently introduced and passed legislation to expand data breach notification rules and to mirror some of the protections provided by Europe’s newly enacted General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). See our previous blog posts on GDPR here and here. Like their European counterparts, these state laws are intended to provide consumers with greater transparency and control over their personal data. The California and Vermont laws, in particular, go beyond breach notification and require companies to make significant changes in their data processing operations. See our earlier post on the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) here.… Continue Reading
GDPR is upon us: are you ready for what comes next?
The wait is finally over—this Friday the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force. For many readers of this post, a huge amount of work will have been done in recent months in building up to compliance with the new regime. However, the challenges of GDPR certainly don’t end on the date this law goes into implementation. We have shared below some interesting points that we’ve seen arising recently, all of which relate to how things are likely to develop from today onwards, including enforcement predictions, challenges related to operationalizing data subject access procedures, and how … Continue Reading
UK NIS Regulations impose new cybersecurity obligations (and a new penalties regime) on operators of essential services and digital service providers in the UK
The UK NIS Regulations (implementing the NIS Directive) come into force in the UK today (10 May 2018). These Regulations have received limited press attention, in part due to the emphasis that has been placed on GDPR implementation. However, the NIS Regulations represent a significant change in the legal environment relating to cybersecurity in the UK.… Continue Reading
