China and Japan Take it Slow With the GDPR—For Now
A new survey from McDermott Will & Emery and the Ponemon Institute places businesses in China and Japan well behind Western countries when it comes to GDPR awareness and compliance. But that may not be the case for long.
September 18, 2019 at 07:00 AM
4 minute read
While the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been in effect for a little over a year now, results from a new survey conducted by law firm McDermott Will & Emery and the Ponemon Institute show that businesses in China and Japan are still lagging behind in their data privacy compliance efforts.
However, it may not stay that way for long. Mark Schreiber, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, thinks entities in China and Japan may have been holding back to see how other global players like the EU or the U.S. have responded to the GDPR.
Now, some greater movement towards GDPR compliance may be on the horizon. Japan already entered into a data transfer partnership agreement with the EU earlier this year, and Schreiber noted that China has proven capable of propelling change very quickly.
"It may be that China and/or Japan will advance after seeing [responses to the GDPR] in ways that even in the U.S. we haven't done," Schreiber said.
As for right now, both countries still appear to be biding their time. The survey, which included responses from 1,263 companies across the U.S., Europe, China and Japan, found that only 29% of Chinese respondents and 32% of Japanese respondents indicated that they were fully compliant with the GDPR. That was more than 10% lower than their Western counterparts.
Awareness didn't fare much better, with 49% of Chinese respondents and 36% of Japanese respondents stating that they were not familiar with the regulation.
According to Schreiber, China and Japan don't want to be leading the pack when it comes to GDPR compliance. But why?
Dan Greene, a certified information privacy professional at Beckage, pointed to the costs and resources a company would have to direct towards compliance. Some might be more inclined to sit back and monitor the number and scope of the fines that have resulted globally from GDPR infractions before deciding the kind of investment it merits.
There's also existing privacy and cybersecurity regimes in both Japan and China to consider. Japan's Act on the Protection of Personal Information has been on the books since 2003, while China's Cybersecurity Law (CSL) was enacted in 2017.
Businesses looking to comply with both the GDPR and CSL, for example, may find themselves juggling two competing directives. The GDPR tends to focus on individual rights and protections, while the CSL is geared more toward national security, with data required to undergo a review by the Chinese government before transfer if it meets certain criteria.
Companies found in violation of China's cybersecurity law can be fined or even forfeit their internet presence. The specter of those outcomes may also be factored into a business's approach to the GDPR.
Greene thinks that there needs to be "an added layer of analysis" for agreements that may trigger concerns related to both the GDPR and Chinese privacy or cybersecurity rules. "So look at sort of what the risks are in your own backyard versus those that are thousands of miles away."
Still, market forces are market forces, and the opportunity to do business with EU companies and consumers may be too much for businesses in Japan and China to pass up.
Of course, a steadily expanding roster of headline-making fines against companies like Google is also a good incentive to play by the rules.
"[China and Japan] are beginning to realize that even if there isn't a lot of enforcement activity right away, it could catch up to the them and that would be bad for them with respect to reputation. And those companies from China and Japan are often concerned with reputation," Schreiber 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 3Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 4READ THE DOC: NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 5US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
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