Uneasiness After E.U. 'Safe Harbor' Decision
The European Court of Justice rejects program that allowed for data transfer. The fallout is messy.
December 08, 2015 at 07:07 PM
6 minute read
Many organizations were left in legal uncertainty when the European Court of Justice invalidated the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor program last month. In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice held that, due to alleged spying by U.S. government agencies, companies could not ensure adequate protection for data transferred from the European Union to the United States, even if they met the safe harbor's requirements. Therefore, data transfers under the program had to stop immediately.
E.U. countries operate under the Data Protection Directive. The directive requires E.U. member states to accord their citizens a baseline level of privacy protection for “personal data,” defined broadly as any information that can be used to identify an individual. “Personal data” includes information such as a person's name, phone number and email address. Under the directive, such data may be transferred lawfully to a country outside the E.U., if the European Commission has determined that the country offers “adequate” protection for personal data, or if other means are taken to ensure sufficient data privacy. This makes data transfers to countries that are not deemed to offer adequate protections difficult, since most data is “personal data” under the directive.
The United States is not deemed to offer adequate protection under the directive. To ensure data could be transferred to the United States, U.S. and European authorities designed several transfer mechanisms, chief among them the Safe Harbor program. Adopted in 2000, companies self-certify that they will apply certain privacy protections to data transferred from the E.U. In exchange, such companies were considered to offer “adequate” protection under the directive and data transfers were permissible.
This content has been archived.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 AllCould the E-Discovery Job Market Undergo a 'Great Recalibration' in 2024?
4 minute readSony's Sharpie Redaction Gaffe Is Egregious, But Underscores Common E-Discovery Gaps
4 Ways Generative AI-Produced Deepfakes Are Impacting the Legal Industry
1 minute readTrending Stories
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