On December 15, 2015, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached a political agreement on the text of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).1 This is a major step toward the official adoption of the GDPR, which is now expected in Spring 2016. The GDPR will have a significant impact on how EU and non-EU businesses can collect and process the personal data of EU individuals. This article discusses the key elements of the GDPR.
Continue Reading EU Reaches Political Agreement on New Data Protection Regulation
WSGR Alert: EU Data Protection Authorities Issue Statement Following Agreement on EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
On February 3, 2016, the body of European data protection regulators—the Article 29 Working Party (WP29)—issued a statement following the announcement of a political agreement regarding a new transatlantic data transfer scheme, the EU-U.S. Privacy
Continue Reading WSGR Alert: EU Data Protection Authorities Issue Statement Following Agreement on EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
WSGR Alert: EU and U.S. Reach a Political Agreement on Transatlantic Data Transfer Deal
On February 2, 2016, the European Commission announced that a political agreement on a new legal framework for data transfers has been reached between the European Union (EU) and the U.S. Today’s agreement introduces the
What’s Next for U.S.-EU Data Transfers? An Analysis of Recent Developments Following Schrems
On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework as a legal basis for transferring personal data from the European Union to the U.S.1 The judgment was delivered in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, a case in which Max Schrems, an Austrian student, complained to the Data Protection Authority (DPA) in Ireland about the transfer of his personal data by Facebook to its servers in the U.S.
The Schrems judgment is of major importance to the over 4,000 companies that relied on Safe Harbor to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S. This article details the background of the case, analyzes its holdings and consequences, and summarizes the main developments that have occurred since the judgment was issued.
Continue Reading What’s Next for U.S.-EU Data Transfers? An Analysis of Recent Developments Following Schrems
Landmark Decision Clarifies Territorial Scope of Application of National Data Protection Laws in the EU
On October 1, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is the EU’s highest court, delivered its judgment in Case C-230/14—Weltimmo.1 The CJEU ruling is a landmark decision in determining the territorial scope of application of national data protection laws and the competence of national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) in the EU.
All 28 countries of the EU have their own national data protection laws. The territorial scope of application of these laws often raises questions for companies doing business in multiple EU countries. The main rule states that the national data protection law of a certain EU country applies if data processing is “carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment” of the data controller in that EU country. If the data controller is not established in the EU, but makes use of “equipment” in a certain EU country to process personal data, the national data protection law of that EU country will apply. The Weltimmo case provides some clarity on how to determine the application of EU data protection law when the data controller is established in the EU.
Continue Reading Landmark Decision Clarifies Territorial Scope of Application of National Data Protection Laws in the EU
Personal Data, Anonymization, and Pseudonymization in the EU
De-identification techniques are often at the forefront of companies’ concerns when it comes to the processing of big data. In addition, anonymization and pseudonymization techniques have been a heavily debated topic in the ongoing reform of EU data protection law. This makes last year’s Article 29 Working Party (WP29) Opinion on Anonymization Techniques1 even more important, as it examines the effectiveness and limits of anonymization techniques and places them in the context of data protection law. This article details the WP29 Opinion on Anonymization Techniques and considers the opinion in relation to the upcoming EU General Data Protection Regulation.
Continue Reading Personal Data, Anonymization, and Pseudonymization in the EU