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
© 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
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