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
© 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
- 1How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 2Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 3Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 4Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
- 5Monday Newspaper
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