In-House Leaders From Facebook, Uber and Others Discuss the Complexity of Consent in GDPR
Are companies seeking too much consent to process data? Too little? It's a situation that poses challenges for in-house lawyers far and wide.
April 20, 2018 at 03:16 PM
4 minute read
Representatives from some of the world's most powerful tech companies, Facebook Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., Dropbox Inc. and Salesforce.org, spoke on a panel this week that addressed the challenges potentially posed by General Data Protection Regulation compliance.
The discussion, hosted by the High Tech Law Journal at Santa Clara University School of Law on Wednesday night, brought leaders from all four companies together to discuss how they're preparing for the impending GDPR implementation date. On May 25, the new regulation on data protection and privacy will kick in for all companies collecting and processing European Union citizens' data.
One topic—consent under the GDPR—resurfaced throughout the evening. Under the new rules, companies must have “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous” consent before collecting an individual's data. There are exceptions under the regulation though, including when companies have and can prove “legitimate interest” in the data (though there are varying interpretations of legitimate interest), or if data collection is required to carry out a contract the company has with a customer or user.
Amanda Katzenstein, product and privacy counsel for Salesforce.org, focused on the issue of getting consent in an employee-employer relationship, where there's often an imbalance of power large enough that she says it's tricky to get genuine consent from a legal standpoint.
“One of the major shifts that has occurred under GDPR is that you actually need to remove [requests for] consent when discussing the basis to process employee data, because of the huge discrepancy of power between the employer and the employee. The employee doesn't always really get a benefit and it's not going to be true consent,” Katzenstein said.
She added employers may have to prove they have a legitimate interest in the data they're collecting on employees and hires—like arguing background checks are necessary for security. If employers have legitimate interest in the data, according to the GDPR, they don't need consent to collect it.
Facebook lead product counsel Andrew Rausa discussed external issues with obtaining and maintaining consent. He said companies should be careful, as they don't necessarily have to make every aspect of a product consent-focused. If a business can't function without collecting certain data from users, Rausa says, the processing could be considered a contractual necessity under the GDPR, and wouldn't require consent.
“Consent is great, the unambiguous expression that somebody wants you to do that data processing. But think about that—think about if you actually need to do this processing in order to enable your business,” he said. Rausa noted that giving somebody the ability to consent also gives them the ability to withdraw consent.
“And think about it, if you're not able to process that data, are you able to run your business? And that is when, if you ask yourself that question, and you go, 'No, actually the agreement I had with the user requires me to do this data processing,' well, we now may be in the world of contractual necessity.”
In cases where a company does need to get consent from users to comply with new EU regulations, Rausa said they should start to get it now, if they haven't already.
Stu Eaton, Uber's director of product and privacy also addressed companies' potential overuse of consent post-GDPR, and said he hopes that companies are thinking about moving off of consent as their primary basis for processing.
“This concept that consent is not good enough anymore, I don't think people have fully processed that yet,” Eaton said. “Because consent is one of the last things that you want to rely on necessarily, because it can be withdrawn, and withdrawing consent has actual consequences.”
The panelists discussed some of these consequences, and the difficulties of data erasure. Rausa said it's extremely important to sit down with engineers and find out what they're collecting, where it's stored, for how long and who has access to it, and to ensure that engineers aren't accidentally using data that an individual requested to have destroyed.
Dropbox head of risk and compliance Tolga Erbay had some advice of his own for those confused by the new EU regulation—just sit down and take a look at the whole thing.
“Read the GDPR,” Erbay said. “It's actually not as bad as you think it is.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Recent CEO Shooting Tragedy a Reminder for Corporate Risk Assessment and Incident Response Plans
7 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Charlie Javice Fraud Trial Delayed as Judge Denies Motion to Sever
- 2Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
- 3With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Attorneys See Potential for Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 4Trump Signs Executive Order Creating Strategic Digital Asset Reserve
- 5St. Jude Labs Sued for $14.3M for Allegedly Falling Short of Purchase Expectations
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250