With GDPR in Place, US Higher Education Institutions Face Their Own Challenges
Companies have been panicking over the General Data Protection Regulation, but they're far from the only entities covered. Colleges and universities have cause for concern too.
June 20, 2018 at 01:04 PM
4 minute read
When Alexander “Sandy” Bilus, a cybersecurity and privacy attorney with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, was speaking to representatives from different colleges earlier this month, one of them asked if complying with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation is worth the high cost of compliance.
The short answer is yes.
Companies and their in-house counsel around the world have been expressing concern about complying with the new regulation for months and even years. But it's easy to forget that the new rules, which took effect May 25, affect other types of institutions, including colleges and universities, in sometimes unexpected ways.
The regulation requires entities containing personal data from the EU to beef up the security of their networks and notify the public of a breach within 72 hours of discovering it, among other obligations. Penalties for noncompliance can be as high as 4 percent of revenue from the previous year or 20 million euros—whichever is greater.
“Many schools don't understand how this could impact them,” Bilus said. “The thing to remember is that the GDPR applies to the personal data of anyone who is in the EU, not just EU citizens.”
Bilus explained that those who are temporarily residents of the EU, whether they be students studying abroad for a semester or professors overseeing research, would have to have their data protected in a way that is GDPR-compliant.
And besides the significant cost of compliance, Bilus said that one problem many schools face is centralizing their data. “They'll have pockets of data all over the school,” Bilus explained. “Just understanding the scope is a big issue for schools.”
Mark McConahay, the associate vice provost and registrar at Indiana University at Bloomington, said that his general counsel began coordinating steps to become compliant roughly nine months ago and the school is still in the process of becoming fully compliant. He said the university took painstaking efforts to consider how it receives information, how it tracks that information and what information it keeps and what information it overwrites.
Speaking from an enrollment perspective, McConahay said that he had to consider all of those for European students residing in the United States, students who were studying abroad and students who were enrolled online. “Online education does apply,” McConahay said.
McConahay said that another part of the process of becoming compliant was conducting a risk assessment.
“It's more or less whether or not you have to make a full-blown change to the system,” McConahay said. “We can identify these students and treat them as exceptions.”
Bilus said that many of the schools he has spoken to and worked with have taken a wait-and-see approach just as many companies have, because it does not appear that the regulators will be targeting American universities at this juncture for noncompliance with GDPR.
“It has been my expectation that they [the regulators] are not going to put U.S.-based, nonprofit institutions at the top of the list when they want to go out and issue fines,” Bilus said.
Bilus said that many schools, like Indiana University, are still working to come into full compliance and while it may be a lengthy and expensive process, the positive is that it gives institutions of higher learning a chance for self-reflection on their own data security.
“There are a lot of good reasons to comply with GDPR. Things can change and there can be risks. If nothing else this gives people at the school the ability to say to higher ups, 'Look at what we can face. Let's use this as an opportunity so that we can better protect ourselves,'” Bilus said.
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 AllKeys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Latham's Lateral Hiring Picks Up Steam, With Firm Adding Simpson Practice Head, Private Equity GC
- 2Legal Restrictions Governing Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace
- 3Failure to Adequately Inform Patients
- 4'FTX' One Year Later: The Impact on Examiner Practice in Bankruptcy Courts
- 5Gen AI Legal Contract Startup Ivo Announces $16 Million Series A Funding Round
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