US Chief Privacy Officers Get Paid More Than EU Peers, Have Closer Ties to Legal
Privacy counsel and chief privacy officers are getting paid more, with salaries highest in the U.S. That could be driven by changing domestic and international privacy laws.
May 07, 2019 at 06:28 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Chief privacy officer (CPO) salaries are on the rise, a new report from the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) claims, with U.S.-based professionals earning the most.
According to the IAPP's 2019 Privacy Professionals Salary Survey, American CPOs' median salary is $212,000, compared to $185,000 in the U.K. and $142,000 in the European Union. The global median salary for CPOs is $200,000 in 2019.
"Privacy is just becoming more and more of a necessary skillset for a lot of companies. It's in great demand and whenever a skillset's in high demand, that tends to command a higher salary," commented Barrett Avigdor, a managing director at Major, Lindsey and Africa.
The cross-Atlantic salary gap could reflect different approaches to privacy professionals in Europe and the U.S. Fewer European respondents hold the CPO title than Americans (10% in the U.K. and 8% in the EU, compared to 17% in the U.S.), according to the IAPP's report
Privacy professionals in Europe are more likely to hold the data protection officer (DPO) title, a role mandated at some companies by the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Nearly 40% of European respondents surveyed hold the DPO role, compared to 5% of U.S.-based privacy professionals.
DPOs' median global salary was $100,000, half of CPO's median salary. The IAPP's report notes, based on those salaries, that "the DPO role is shaping up to be a relatively low-, or at best, mid-level compliance position, rather than a leadership or executive role, like the CPO or lead privacy counsel."
Lead privacy counsel earned a global median of around $183,000. U.S.-based privacy counsel earned a median salary of $190,000, while U.K. and EU-based privacy counsel earned $179,000 and $107,000, respectively.
Median salaries for all privacy professionals, including counsel, CPOs and DPOs, is still highest in the U.S. at $150,000. European privacy professionals' median salary came in at $100,000, including the U.K. This earnings gap could stem from different experience levels: American privacy professionals averaged 8.2 years of privacy work, while EU and U.K. professionals averaged 6.6 years and 7.7 years, respectively.
American privacy professionals are also most likely to be part of their company's legal team. Half of U.S.-based privacy professions were based in legal departments, versus 38% in Europe and 27% in Canada. Almost 15% of U.S. privacy professionals not in the legal department were part of the compliance team.
"I'm seeing more and more of those CPO roles filled by lawyers rather than purely IT people. And I think it's because so much of this is now driven by law," Avigdor said. "It's not just… protecting the data, but complying with the laws related to the data."
Europe's GDPR came into effect last May and, shortly after, California became the first U.S. state to pass a privacy law. U.S. legislators have held a series of hearings on a potential federal privacy law in recent months.
Fewer than 40% of European privacy professionals considered themselves part of legal. Globally, 42% of respondents said they held professional degrees such as an MBA, LLM or JD.
The IAPP's report reveals that most privacy professionals (63%) work in large cities, and 22% in smaller urban areas. More than one fifth of U.S.-based respondents hail from California, with New York coming in second at 11%. Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington are also home to a significant number of U.S. privacy professionals.
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 All‘Are You Not Profiting From Postmasters’ Misery?’—Politicians Grill HSF, Dentons on Post Office Conduct
'Not a Good Look'—FCA Fines Barclays £40M But Accused of Incompetence
Gibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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