$126M and Counting: Companies Should Expect Larger, More Frequent GDPR Fines
A new report warns that data protection regulators across Europe "have been staffing up their enforcement teams and getting to grips with the new regime," which means it's more important than ever for companies to be GDPR-compliant.
February 04, 2020 at 01:40 PM
4 minute read
Fines imposed under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation have been relatively low and infrequent. But companies need to prepare for bigger penalties as authorities throughout Europe bolster enforcement efforts and clarify how fines are calculated and imposed.
"As things develop, as years go by and those holes are understood, it's going to get harder for those companies to say, 'We didn't really understand or know,'" said Kevin Levy, a partner at GrayRobinson's Miami office who chairs the firm's technology transactions practice.
Since the GDPR took effect in May 2018, data protection regulators have imposed about $126 million in total reported fines, "which is quite low given that supervisory authorities enjoy the power to fine up to 4% of total worldwide annual turnover the preceding financial year," according to a new survey from DLA Piper.
The report, which notes that not all GDPR fines are made public, cautions that regulators throughout Europe "have been staffing up their enforcement teams and getting to grips with the new regime. It takes time to build a robust case to justify higher fines." The report's authors could not be immediately reached for comment.
With potentially more painful GDPR fines on the horizon, companies that want to avoid getting dinged need to implement and maintain programs to map the personal data that they collect, store and share, Levy said.
"If you want to protect yourself you need to have a program in place that upper management has bought into," he said. "If upper management hasn't bought in, it's not going to get the funding and support it needs and the people below aren't going to take it seriously."
He added that companies also need to remain vigilant as undeveloped parts of the GDPR are being exposed. For instance, hackers are using the GDPR to request personal information for other people and exploiting companies that lack the ability to identify scammers.
"They don't even have to hack into your system," Levy said. "They just have to follow the [GDPR] rules."
Breach notifications across the EU have increased from an average of 247 per day during the first eight months that the GDPR was in effect to 278 notifications per day, a 12.6% bump, from Jan. 28, 2019, to Jan. 27 of this year.
Last year saw several big companies, including Google, British Airways, Marriott International Inc. and Deutsche Wohnen SE, face significant fines for alleged GDPR infractions. Google, which was fined $55 million for violations related to personalized ads, has vowed to appeal, a move that "will become much more common" as long as the GDPR rules are murky, the survey states.
DLA Piper predicts that it will take "several years if not a decade—before a standard methodology starts to emerge from the jurisprudence of Member State courts, from the European Court of Justice and from the European Data Protection Board."
Read More:
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 AllCorporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
High-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
- 2Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 3Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 4When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
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