The GDPR's Biggest Influence on Global Privacy May Be Through Commerce
More countries are beginning to adapt legislation that echoes pillars of Europe's General Data Protection Regulation. Is it a coincidence or strategically motivated?
December 20, 2018 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but sometimes it's hard to tell imitation from sheer coincidence. Earlier this month, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released a series of recommendations echoing several core tenants of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Australia isn't the only world player doing a GDPR cover. Back in November, Canada passed the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act offering similar privacy protections to those featured in the European Union. California's forthcoming California Consumer Privacy Act will even bring a taste of those principles stateside.
So is the GDPR taking over the world? The cultural differences that have historically defined each individual country's approach to privacy make it difficult to tell whether the European Union's landmark privacy legislation has set a new bar or simply overlaps a number of security best practices.
Still, Commerce is one of the few areas where it's easy to feel the guiding hand of the GDPR—and it can help to explain why lawyers in the U.S. won't be saying goodbye to the GDPR any time soon.
“People are really concerned about complying with [the GDPR]. It's the new hot topic, and it's just so comprehensive and there are so many provisions to it that it's still on the forefront of everyone's mind because there's so many aspects of compliance,” Elizabeth Dill, a partner and member of the data privacy and cybersecurity practice at Lewis Brisbois, said.
The firm is often fielding questions from corporate clients that fall somewhere along the lines of: “We don't technically have to do this, but wouldn't it just be easier to become GDPR compliant now?”
The answer is always yes. Companies, especially the bigger ones with lots of moving parts, can't change their data processing methods or security programs overnight. Christopher Ballod, a partner specializing in data privacy and cyber security at Lewis Brisbois, often advises clients to consider where they think privacy laws in the United States will stand in two years time.
For those purposes, California might be the best weather vane around. The state was at the forefront of the data breach notification laws that were eventually picked up in other states. While its incoming data privacy law is not an identical twin to the GDPR, it does include many of the same privacy protections.
“We spend a lot of time even with American companies who have little contact with Europe at this point getting them GDPR ready because they want to do business and continue to do business in California, or because they have plans to do business or market to European customers,” Ballod said.
Even if those clients have no designs on Europe whatsoever, they are often engaging in partnerships with larger domestic companies who are already compliant and expect the same of their business associates.
U.S. laws have typically avoided confronting privacy directly, instead focusing on breach notification standards or preventing identity theft. Still, if enough of the country's businesses begin tailoring their security and data infrastructure towards E.U. standards, it might make sense for any emerging national policies to begin leaning in the same direction.
“I think law is actually going to reflect reality as opposed to reality reflecting law,” Ballod said.
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
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
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