10 Things You Should Know Before the GDPR Deadline Is Here
May 25 is almost here. Is your organization ready? I mean, actually ready? Here are some tips for GDPR novices and experts alike.
May 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
The deadline to be compliant with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation is at the end of next week. Yes, seriously. So, are you and your organization ready?
No, really think about it. Do you know that you're ready?
The GDPR has a number of provisions that could prove costly to unaware organizations. While the maximum penalty of the greater between $20 million or 4 percent of an organization's annual revenue may not be widely applied, compliance will still be expected for all organizations that touch EU citizens' data in some way. And in the internet age where even having an online store could mean interacting with EU citizens' data, that means just about everybody.
There's a lot to learn, no matter where you are in your GDPR prep. That's why we've pulled together these stories to aid both novices and experts. We'll continue our GDPR coverage as well up through the May 25 deadline and beyond.
1. The Basics: The GDPR has six guiding privacy principles: lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose limitation; data minimization; accuracy; integrity and confidentiality; and storage limitation. Getting down those definitions is a good place to start, because as GDPR Article 52 notes, ““The [data] controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with,” the above principles.
2. A Legitimate Interest: One of those basics that may be tough to grasp is the idea of having a “legitimate interest” to process data, as mandated by the GDPR. As reported in Legaltech News, the wording in the EU's Data Protection Directive and the GDPR concerning a legitimate interest is exactly the same, save for a few additions the GDPR has on protecting the data of children. In 2014, EU's Article 29 Working Party released an opinion explaining how legitimate interest operates under the directive, noting that the concept of legitimate interest is “open-ended” so that it can be “relied upon in a wide range of situations, as long as its requirements” are met. In one Avepoint study, 47 percent of respondents said they needed more clarity on the concept of “legitimate interest” in the GDPR.
3. The Issue of Consent: Another basic that some may struggle with has to do with confidentiality, and how to actually obtain consent from EU users to utilize their data. LTN's Ian Lopez explored this issue in the case of Facebook earlier this month and found that for many companies that rely on user data, the GDPR's requirements may not be easy. In particular, GDPR Article 17 allows a data subject to demand controllers, such as Facebook, erase data “without undue delay.” Also known as “the right to be forgotten,” the law established in previous EU privacy laws and rulings takes on new weight with the looming GDPR.
4. The Data Protection Officer: One of the unique positions created by the GDPR is that of the “data protection officer,” which the regulation states should be “designated on the basis of professional qualities and, in particular, expert knowledge of data protection law and practices.” This doesn't necessarily mean a new hire, as the law permits a compliance chief, for example, to add the DPO designation, or even the DPO to be an outside contractor who can serve more than one company. In Microsoft's case, the company hired an outside IT expert. One recent survey found that 63 percent of companies already have a DPO in place.
5. Your Employee Data: Much of the GDPR focus has been on customer data too, but it's important to remember that the regulation covers all data, including that of your own employees. These rights include the aforementioned right to be forgotten. Notably though, Cooley partner Ann Bevitt told Corporate Counsel last week that under the GDPR, employers do not need to obtain consent from their employees to process data. She said employee consent is not valid because the “balance of power in the employment relationship” is weighted so heavily toward the employer.
6. Ensuring Insurance: Double-checking the organization's insurance coverage in case of an emergency is another thing that can get lost in the GDPR weeds, but more mature organizations should probably double-check. Writing for Legaltech News, cyberinsurance expert Judy Selby says any analysis should include a thorough review of the various mandates contained in the GDPR, as well as the company's practices around protected data, its current insurance policy(ies), and the law governing interpretation of those policies. Importantly, even companies that currently have cyberinsurance in place may not have optimal coverage for the variety of exposures under the GDPR.
7. Firms Doing Double Duty: So what are organizations doing to prepare? Large law firms told The American Lawyer that the GDPR has sent “paper flying” at their firms. London-based Ropes & Gray partner Rohan Massey explained, “Some businesses run on the value of data, that's their entire business model,” he said. “Others have it as a byproduct, it's not their core purpose. They're the ones that are behind.” As a result, said London-based Squire Patton Boggs partner Anne LaFrance, extremely sophisticated data-rich, consumer-facing businesses—the “pick and mix clients”—come in the door with particularly complex issues, such as how to manage the new regulation on a pan-European basis. But there are companies handling business-to-business data—the “soup to nuts clients,” LaFrance calls them—that have never focused on these issues before and need help with everything.
8. ALSPs to the Rescue: But it's not just law firms that corporate legal departments are turning to. For help in a pinch, a number of alternative legal service providers have also rolled out GDPR-specific packages, primarily in high-volume work such as information and contract management. Legaltech News' Gabrielle Orum Hernández explored how many GDPR response teams are comprised of a mix of corporate attorneys, outside counsel, and ALSP experts. “There's a constant flow of regulatory change,” said Chris DeConti, executive vice president of global solutions at Axiom. “They start realizing that, they set up organizations to respond to that, and those organizations tend to be a mix of lawyers, operations people, tech people, and project management folks.”
9. But the Work's Not Done: Although many in-house counsel are aware of changes that need to be made, those changes still need to actually be implemented. An Association of Corporate Counsel report released in early May looked at what still needed to be done. Some 47 percent of respondents reported that, in order to comply with GDPR, they must change data security standards. Meanwhile, 45 percent said they must change their breach notification procedures to do so, and 43 percent said they need to modify incident response plans. This is particularly pressing in the health care and financial services sectors, where a separate April survey found that 7 percent of health care companies said they are unlikely to be fully compliant by the deadline, while 3 percent of financial services companies reported they haven't even begun the process to do so.
10. A Marathon, Not a Sprint: And it's important to note: Even though May 25 is the deadline for compliance, it doesn't mean compliance can lapse after that date. The GDPR is an ongoing process. McDermott Will & Emery partner Mark Schreiber told Legaltech News: “What we're beginning to realize is that May 25 is not a stopping point. It's in some respects just a beginning.” The race toward GDPR compliance, Schreiber said, “is going to be more like a marathon than a 100-yard dash.” He added, “These obligations are going to go on for years with a number of new adjustments and modulations, further investment and compliance. It's not a one-stop, one-point-in-time obligation.”
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 AllPierson Ferdinand's New Partner Talks Startup's IP Risks, Deepfake Regulation and More
UK-Based Legal Entity Management Startup Kuberno Announces £9.5 Million Series A Investment
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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