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
© 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 AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand and Uncertainty
Russia-Linked Deepfakes Are Hitting the US Election. Will It Spur Congress to Act?
AI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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