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
© 2024 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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