A Year After GDPR, GCs Still Explaining Regulation's Requirements
In-house counsel are still trying to adapt their companies' thinking and operations to a post-GDPR world, while also keeping an eye out for the upcoming California Consumer Privacy Act.
April 25, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Roughly a year after the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect, a panel of Philadelphia-area general counsel said they are still explaining the regulation's new requirements to their corporations and still figuring out how to comply.
The GCs spoke at the “Beyond Borders: GDPR, CCPA and the Tightening Restrictions on Consumer Data Monetization” panel during Fox Rothschild's second annual Privacy Summit on Wednesday.
Panelists included Jacquelyn Caridad, chief privacy officer and associate GC at Dow Jones & Co.; Cynthia Gage Kellam,TE Connectivity's global security director; Tanya Madison, chief privacy and cybersecurity counsel at TD Bank; and Sheila Phillips Hawes, vice president and chief privacy officer at AmerisourceBergen Corp. The panel was moderated by Fox Rothschild partner and GDPR compliance and international privacy chair Odia Kagan.
The panelists noted that the GDPR takes an individual rights approach to data privacy, which is an essential aspect to stress when explaining how a company can use individuals' data. Caridad noted that those in her company have to understand data collected can't be used for a new purpose without prior consent.
“We need to be clear on what we are collecting and why,” she said. “And if you have other purposes you might think of later, come and talk to me and see if they've already disclosed it and the individual already knows that or expects that. … It's definitely an evolving conversation. and the more you have these conversations, the more the teams understand.”
Having those data consent conversations also includes explaining why a company's processes must meet certain data privacy requirements, even if they do not directly fall under GDPR's purview.
Kagan noted, “You may not need to worry about regulatory enforcement, but you usually have to worry about clients subject to GDPR that are telling you, 'We are not going to work with you if you can't show we can use you without interfering with our client.' That comes up a lot.”
Indeed, Hawes said she had to explain to her company that although it's a B2B business that does not process sensitive data, it is still held to extensive contractual obligations. “Even though we have this business contact data and no sensitive personal data, we still are required by our clients to comply with these huge contract obligations and finish huge questionnaires.”
While Hawes highlighted being on the receiving end on those time-consuming contracts, Madison said creating those contracts also takes consideration and looking at once routine activity through new GDPR lenses.
“In both B2B relationships and your normal vendor services, we are really having to stop and rethink, how do we this without creating contractual agreements that are 30 pages long with standard contractual clauses and full GDPR amendments for the exchange of name and corporate email address for a conference registration,” Madison said. “Those are some of the in-the-weed things that aren't thought about when the [GDPR compliance] project is first rolled out, but as you start to live with GDPR on a day-to-day basis, you start to see those issues raised.”
Adding to the compliance challenge is the upcoming California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), panelists said.
“If GDPR didn't get you, the chances are CCPA and or one of the associated other state laws is going to,” Caridad said. “Some of what CCPA requires is different from GDPR, so you can't just take what you did with GDPR and replicate it for CCPA.” Data mapping, while challenging, will be essential for being in compliance with CCPA, GDPR and other state data privacy laws, she added.
While there are stresses in ensuring companies are compliant with the GDPR and CCPA, the regulations' financial penalties, and the prospect of reputational damage, provide in-house counsel leverage to push forward protocols that may have fallen on deaf ears in the C-suite before.
“As difficult as it's been to work through all the GDPR issues, I really do appreciate it for the leverage it's given the privacy office,” Caridad said. “It really has given us the ability to push the privacy issues [and] the privacy program to the next level very quickly—whereas that was always my plan, I don't think I would have gotten there as quickly without the GDPR's tailwind.”
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
- 1LSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
- 2An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 3Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 4How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 5Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
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