Beyond GDPR, There's Still Local DPA Regulation to Consider
A new legislative tracker from U.K.-based firm Bird & Bird hopes to help organizations keep track of specific privacy regulations across the EU's member states outside of just the GDPR.
May 29, 2018 at 12:00 PM
3 minute read
Organizations who've long been preparing for the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation to go into effect may now have to look beyond the landmark regulation to see what other EU-based privacy requirements they may be responsible for.
U.K.-based law firm Bird & Bird recently launched a GDPR legislative tracker to help organizations manage requirements set by local Data Protection Authority groups to buttress the new regulation. The tracker denotes which EU member states have passed supplemental legislation, and what key issues organizations need to account for in each nation.
Gabriel Voisin, a partner in Bird & Bird's privacy and data protection practice, explained that member states were given regionally specific leeway to implement privacy regulations beyond the specific mandates of the GDPR. “This tracker aims to keep an eye on those national implements where the member states have been left this room, so that now organizations who have digested or started to digest GDPR, they can also look at the second layer,” he noted.
Although the GDPR's requirements have long been the top priority for privacy specialists, Voisin said organizations seem to be doing a good job of keeping up-to-speed on various local considerations across EU member states. Still, many organizations have a great deal of work to do in this arena.
“Many organizations, especially multicountry organizations, have delayed the second part of the exercise—to localize and review local laws—because, and rightly, they were not in a position to make a meaningful assessment and review, so they had a bucket approach,” he said, noting that many organizations have taken broad, GDPR-focused approaches to compliance to use their resources most effectively.
Voisin flagged a few key areas where the tracker can provide clarity for folks: specific local DPA regulation, age of children requiring parental consent, and potential medical research exemptions for pharmaceutical and clinical trial companies. “The age of children for parental consent can also be good, especially for video game companies, because they are definitely the kind of companies that will be concerned by that,” he said.
Part of the difficulty in complying with local DPA ordinances also lies in the fact that many DPAs haven't fully finalized their supplemental legislation. “It's still a work in progress,” Voisin noted. “There are still member states lagging behind and working behind where they're supposed to have prepared for, so for once we can say it's not just organizations who are behind, it's also the member states.”
Voisin hopes that DPA's lack of finalization, much like organizations subject to GDPR compliance, might be factored into the scrutiny companies are set to face under the new regulation. “That should be taken into consideration when it comes to the moment of enforcement,” he said.
Notably, some organizations are already facing scrutiny under GDPR. Google and Facebook were each hit with multibillion dollar lawsuits on the first day GDPR went into effect, and a number of popular websites simply removed services for EU customers to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Voisin was not at all surprised to see large companies such as Google and Facebook hit by these lawsuits. “What will have to be monitored is the reaction of the DPAs,” he said. “We'll have to see how they're going to be able to, on the one hand, please those privacy consumer organizations by looking into the matter, and [also] respecting the promise of being pragmatic.”
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 AllTrending Stories
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