Brexit Uncertainty Forebodes Wait-and-See Approach Over Future of Data Transfer
'Keep calm and carry on?' Not quite. Deal or no deal, Brexit has left companies uncertain about how to manage their cross-border data.
April 10, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
As the deadline for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union looms with no deal in sight, data privacy attorneys said many are taking a wait-and-see-approach over how they can transfer data between the U.K. and EU after Brexit.
To be sure, even if the deadline passed without a withdrawal agreement approved by the U.K. Parliament, the U.K. would still be subject to the General Data Protection Regulation until Dec. 31, 2020, when the country would officially leave the bloc.
“EU-originated personal data will go without any formal restriction to the U.K. during that 21-month grace period,” said Gabriel Voisin, a London-based Bird & Bird partner.
The 21-month transition period, Voisin added, could be used by the U.K. Parliament and EU lawmakers to hash out an agreement that ensures the U.K. policy meets EU data protection standards. In contrast, the U.K. has already agreed the EU member states' data protections are adequate enough for them to transfer data into the the country without restrictions.
“In an ideal world, during that 21-month period the U.K. can obtain from the EU [lawmaking] bodies a so-called adequacy decision, which will give the permission for the U.K. to receive, without any form of restriction, EU-originated personal data,” Voisin said. However, he also added, in the withdrawal agreement there is “absolutely no guarantee after this evaluation that the U.K. will receive such an adequacy.”
Establishing an adequate protection measure, which confirms a country's data protections conform to EU standards, isn't uncharted territory. Recently, Japan's data protection was deemed adequate by the EU, and the country joined Israel, Switzerland and Argentina in receiving EU approval for data transfers.
If the EU does find the U.K.'s data protections are adequate, the policies for transferring EU-based data in the U.K. will be more straightforward, said Kingsley Napley senior associate Rowena Rix.
“It will largely operate as it does now,” noted Rix. Still, a timeline for obtaining that adequacy decision seems difficult as the U.K. government juggles other pressing issues, including entering international trade agreements to ensure imports and exports of food.
“There will be so much to consider in terms of Brexit. It's just a question of where they see that on their list of priorities. Who knows what that list will look like?” Rix said. “Organizations have to be prepared for the possibility of not having this finding of adequacy for a while.”
All this uncertainty means that those looking to transfer data between the EU and U.K. will have to wait an indeterminate amount of time for clarity.
“I think definitely in our community there's a wait-and-see approach, because you could be rewriting all your contracts and you don't have to,” Rix said.
To be sure, some industries have taken a more proactive approach. “I think it's fair to say, across industry, we see a vast amount of companies doing nothing. However, there are certain industries, in contrast, that do take action,” Bird & Bird's Voisin said. “Especially because they feel better about the effect Brexit could have, or their compliance nature would force them.” He cited financial institutions and companies in the aviation industry as the industries more likely to prepare for Brexit.
Such contingency plans can include adopting standard contractual clauses, which are approved by the EU as a legal basis to safeguard some transfers of personal data to third countries, including the U.K.
Still, Rix noted although the U.K. is leaving the EU, data privacy is here to stay in Britain and Northern Ireland.
“If anyone is under the illusion of 'we can be more relaxed over data protection,' I think that would be an incorrect conclusion,” she 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
© 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
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