Legal Transfers of Personal Data From the EU to the US in Danger
An appeal decided in the European Union changes the rules for transferring personal data from the EU to the United States, and contract changes may be needed.
July 22, 2020 at 01:20 AM
5 minute read
The European Union-U.S. privacy shield will no longer provide more than 5,000 companies with a legal means to transfer personal data from the EU to the United States following a compelling decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union on July 16.
If your company is relying on the privacy shield to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S., you need to immediately put in place another legal means of transferring such personal data or risk being in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679, commonly referred to as GDPR. You also could be potentially in breach of contractual requirements with vendors, customers and other third parties, which could include the risk of providing indemnification.
What was the EU-U.S. privacy shield?
The privacy shield was a self-certification program developed in 2016 through the collaboration of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission. Due to more stringent data protections in the EU than in the U.S., the privacy shield provided U.S.-based companies with an EU recognized framework to comply with EU data protection requirements. The privacy shield was enforced in the U.S. by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Transportation.
Why does the court's decision matter?
Prior to the decision, there were two practical mechanisms available for U.S.-based companies to legally transfer personal data out of the EU and into the U.S.: self-certification under the privacy shield or including the European Commission-approved standard contractual clauses in contracts pursuant to which such transfers took place.
Following the court's decision, there is now only one practical mechanism available for U.S.-based companies to legally transfer personal data out of the EU and into the U.S. — proper use of the standard contractual clauses, or SCC.
The court also considered whether to abolish the standard contractual clauses, but the decision specifically left in place a prior European Commission decision implementing the SCC as a legal means of transferring personal data from the EU to the U.S. because they are more in line with the EU's current view on data protection. This part of the decision is important not only because it affirms one of the practical means for the continued transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S., but it also indicates that the EU (at least through the EU's highest court) is largely relying on commercial, contractual relationships for the protection of such data transfers.
However, as a result of the decision, any company which has relied solely on the privacy shield for transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. must now review all vendor, customer and other third-party relationships where such transfers are involved to properly incorporate the SCC into such relationship to avoid prosecution and fines from the EU as well as potential breach of contract concerns.
Companies and their counsel should also be on the lookout for references to the privacy shield in current form contracts and future contracts, and replace those references with the proper use of the SCC.
What to watch for next
The decision from the court came as a bit of a shock to many in the U.S., especially the FTC, DOT and those companies relying exclusively on the privacy shield, as well as many EU businesses involved in the transfer of personal data to the U.S.
Given the far-reaching and potentially immediate implications of the decision (the court is the highest court in the EU from which there is no appeal), officials from both the U.S. and EU have expressed a desire to meet and work toward an updated or new mechanism to replace the privacy shield as well as a grace period for U.S.-based companies to adjust compliance efforts. Based on a history of similar decisions, such a request is likely — but not guaranteed — to be granted by the EU.
What to do next
As it is unlikely there will be a final resolution any time soon regarding the use of an updated or replacement to the privacy shield, U.S. and EU companies should immediately review any contracts, processes and procedures which involve the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. and promptly consult with knowledgeable data privacy and security counsel to ensure proper reliance on the standard contractual clauses is included in all such contracts, processes and procedures.
Kevin Levy is a Miami shareholder and chair of the technology transactions practice at GrayRobinson. Drew Haggard is an associate in the firm's Fort Lauderdale office.
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
- 2Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 3$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 4Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 5Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
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