How GDPR Will Shake Foundations of Corporate Marketing
Executives discuss the ways in which companies' marketing efforts must change under the General Data Protection Regulation.
January 22, 2018 at 11:29 AM
4 minute read
The EU's upcoming General Data Protection Regulation is already affecting everything from the way companies handle e-discovery to how they train their employees.
But there is still much left for companies to do in order to be compliant by the late May enforcement date. Many companies' marketing efforts, for instance, may need to be revamped given the regulation's mandates.
“There are really two provisions that impact marketing pretty directly,” said Lisa Loftis, a principal consultant, customer intelligence, at software company SAS and speaker at Legalweek's “GDPR & Global Marketing: Adapting Your Strategy for Success” Feb. 1 session in New York.
The first provision, Loftis said, requires companies to obtain consent from EU citizens before using or storing their personal data. “The GDPR mandates that consent has to be freely given, be specific, informed, and unambiguous, and require a clear and affirmative action,” she noted.
“That means that marketing can't rely on soft opt-in processes anymore, they can't rely on the omissions of an opt-out,” Loftis explained. “And they can't have a simple blanket kind of opt-in check box for all of the types of communications and solicitations that they typically do.”
What's more, since consent records will be auditable by EU authorities, consent is “going to have to be stored and tracked.”
The second GDPR provision that affects marketing mandates companies be “very clear to customers on how personal data is collected and how personal data is used,” Loftis added.
But providing clarity on data processing and management is not always simple in marketing efforts that use 21st century technology. Loftis noted that artificial intelligence and machine-learning platforms that regularly process data can contain “black box algorithms,” where the “decision parameters aren't readily transparent, and you don't know what kind of decisions are being made on that data.”
Suffice to say, the GDPR will likely force companies to transform the way their entire marketing efforts are done.
“It requires companies to fundamentally rethink how they collect and use data,” said Doug McPherson, general counsel and chief administrative officer of advertising technology company OpenX.
But while the changes needed under the GDPR may be a heavy lift for many marketing practices, Loftis sees little urgency among U.S. companies to start compliance efforts.
“I think that most of them will not be prepared,” Loftis said. “Large companies tell me they are adopting a kind of wait-and-see attitude in terms of becoming compliant with this.”
Some companies, however, are still even unaware that the EU personal data they hold—even though it is geographically outside of the EU—still falls under the purview of the GDPR.
“There is still a misperception out there by a lot of U.S. digital marketers that this is an EU regulation that doesn't apply to them,” McPherson said.
To be sure, though the mandates of consent and clarity are arguably the most impactful GDPR provisions for marketers, they are far from the only ones that marketers will need to heed.
In addition to “the amount of data they collect and limiting the time they retain it,” McPherson noted that companies' marketing teams will also need to “create internal and external policies that cover a wide number of areas that they haven't developed a lot of processes around, including data security, data breach notification, [and] data retention.”
For Loftis, it's imperative then that marketers recognize every specific change the GDPR will bring to their operation. To that end, she hopes her Legalweek session will help “marketers both in the U.S. and in the EU really understand what the impacts of GDPR are going to be for them.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Avantia Publicly Announces Agentic AI Platform Ava
- 2Shifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
- 3Joint Custody Awards in New York – The Current Rule
- 4Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Adds Capital Markets Attorney
- 5Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
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