How EU's Pending ePrivacy Regulation Interplays With GDPR
While the law hasn't been finalized yet, the European Union's ePrivacy Regulation aims to apply stricter requirements for cookies and direct marketing. When the EU will actually finalize the regulation is less clear.
June 07, 2019 at 10:30 AM
3 minute read
While the ePrivacy Regulation's implementation date is still up in the air, a recent Morrison & Foerster webinar stressed that the pending and current member-state ePrivacy requirements have only been intensified by GDPR's stringent consent requirements.
The “Cookies, E-Privacy and One-Stop-Shop: GDPR at the One-Year Mark” webinar hosted by Morrison & Foerster partner Julie O'Neill and firm partner and global privacy and data security practice co-chairman Alex van der Wolk looked at what the EU's still-pending ePrivacy Regulation could entail and how it and current ePrivacy requirements interplay with the General Data Protection Regulation.
When the ePrivacy Regulation is implemented, it will apply to web browser-tracking cookies and similar technologies, with few expected exemptions. The ePrivacy Regulation was intended to go into effect in all EU member-states alongside the GDPR on May 25, 2018. But as van der Wolk noted, the “European Council is not internally aligned on its position.”
As the European Council hammers out an agreement over the ePrivacy Regulation, since 2002 EU member-states have implemented the ePrivacy Initiative, with requirements vary per country.
O'Neill explained that while the GDPR is a general and wide regime, the ePrivacy directive and regulation specifically govern direct electronic marketing messages, cookies and similar tracking technologies and is based on where the end user is located. She also stressed for those specific tracking and marketing activities, the directive and regulation take precedence over the GDPR, even if the data collected is personal data.
However, the GDPR and ePrivacy do intermingle. Specifically, the ePrivacy directive and regulation looks to the GDPR for interpretations of certain points, including what is valid consent for cookie tracking, O'Neill noted.
The GDPR requires that valid consent be “freely given, specific and informed” and evidenced by an affirmative action. What's more, a service cannot be conditioned on cookie consent.
Because defensible consent for cookies under the ePrivacy hinges on the GDPR interpretation, if a company uses cookies, it is subject to ePrivacy requirements and GDPR, O'Neill said.
Van der Wolk suggested companies prepare for the ePrivacy Regulation to include stricter consent requirements and cookie blocking by default. He also expects more types of communication to fall under the regulation's scope, beyond marketing-related emails and text messages.
While the ePrivacy Regulation crawls toward adoption, the European Data Protection Board issued an opinion on March 12 detailing the ePrivacy Directive's interplay with the GDPR. In a footnote, the EDPB also stressed the importance of a speedy adoption of the broader ePrivacy Regulation.
“The EDPB has called upon the European Commission, Parliament and Council to work together to ensure a swift adoption of the new ePrivacy Regulation,” the opinion stated.
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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