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
© 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
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
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