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
Algorithmic 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
The 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
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
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).
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.
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.
Written 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)
The Turkish Data Protection Board announced the extension of VERBİS registration deadline until June 30, 2020.
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