On November 9, 2016, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP and AvePoint released the results of a joint global survey launched in May 2016 concerning organizational preparedness for implementing the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The GDPR replaces Directive 95/46/EC and will become applicable in May 2018.
The impetuses for the survey were the many significant changes the GDPR will bring to companies’ management and processing of personal data, their privacy compliance programs and their IT systems and infrastructure. CIPL and AvePoint decided to collaborate on this survey to help stakeholders understand the relevant, upcoming challenges and assist organizations in preparing for the implementation of the GDPR.
The survey questions focused on the GDPR topics most relevant to everyday business and compliance concerns. The survey received 233 responses from predominantly multinational organizations, of which 93 percent operate in Europe, more than half operate in the U.S. and less than half operate in South America and Asia. Telecommunication and technology companies were the most represented respondents, followed by insurance and financial services companies, as well as pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. The survey respondents were a mix of both data controllers and data processors, with 57 percent controllers and 43 percent processors. Finally, respondents’ annual revenue size ranged from less than $1 million to more than $100 billion.
The survey results reveal that most respondents have started to assess the impact of the GDPR on their operations, devise company-wide implementation plans and evaluate the need for additional resources. The survey results showed the following key trends:
- GDPR Impact: Respondents believe that the GDPR requirements that will have the largest impact on their organizations include the requirement to implement a comprehensive privacy management program and obligations with respect to processor contracts, data security and breach notification. As expected, senior management is most concerned about the GDPR’s enhanced sanction regime and the data breach notification requirements, as well as how the GDPR will impact their data strategy and ability to use data.
- GDPR Readiness: Respondent organizations appear to be in varying stages of preparation for the GDPR. Most have appointed a data protection officer (“DPO”), and many are either increasing resources in preparation for the GDPR’s implementation or are in the process of considering additional resources to meet the increased obligations.
- Consent and Legitimate Interest: At present, respondent companies rely heavily on the consent of individuals for the processing of their personal data, but results show that only a minority of respondents would be able to meet the enhanced requirements for consent under the GDPR using their current methods. Almost one-third of respondent organizations say that once the GDPR is implemented, they will rely more on the legitimate interest for processing legal basis than they currently do.
- Data Privacy Impact Assessment (“DPIA”) and Privacy by Design: The majority of respondent organizations already carry out, or are preparing to carry out, DPIAs in the circumstances required by the GDPR. More than 36 percent of those organizations have a framework to identify risks to individuals, while another 36 percent are working on developing such a framework. The vast majority of respondent companies tend to incorporate privacy and security by design into the development of new products and services regularly or some of the time.
- Controller/Processor Relationships and Agreements: A majority of respondent organizations’ standard processing agreements already reflect some of the new GDPR requirements. Only 32 percent of respondent organizations are currently undertaking a review or renegotiation of their processing agreements. Apart from the contractual requirements, processors will be most impacted by the GDPR requirement to document all data processing activities and adhere to the restrictions on data transfers outside the EU.
- Data Transfers Outside the EU: Respondent organizations currently appear to use a wide variety of mechanisms for transfers of employee, customer and vendor data. According to the responses, most will continue to do so after the GDPR is implemented. The most popular mechanisms currently used are, in descending order: Model Contracts, consent, the legal basis of necessity and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. Once the GDPR is implemented, in addition to Model Contracts, there is expected to be an increase in the use of Binding Corporate Rules, the legitimate interest for processing derogation and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.
- Data Breach Notification: The majority of respondent companies currently have a procedure for reporting breaches, as well as an internal response plan and team. This will help them comply with the new requirements to notify data protection authorities and affected individuals after a breach. Only a minority of respondents, however, conduct “dry runs” of their breach notification plans, maintain cyber insurance or retain public relations and forensic experts.
- Compliance Technology Tools and Software: Currently, respondent organizations do not appear to widely use, or have access to, technology tools and software to aid with data privacy compliance tasks. Only a minority of respondents use technology to automate and industrialize their DPIAs, data classification and tagging policies, data processing inventories and delivery of the new data portability right.
- Company-wide Approach to GDPR Implementation: Because of the interdependencies among data privacy compliance, IT systems and infrastructure, and organizations’ data strategy, GDPR implementation should be a company-wide change management program, which includes a concerted effort by senior leadership, including DPOs, CISOs, CIOs, CDOs and GCs.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Disclosure
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Paul Tiao
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- WeProtect Global Alliance
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code