On November 23, 2018, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its long-awaited draft guidelines on the extraterritorial application of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Guidelines”). To date, there has been a degree of uncertainty for organizations regarding the scope of the GDPR’s application outside of the EU. While the Guidelines provide some clarity on this issue, questions will remain for non-EU controllers and processors. Importantly, these Guidelines are only in draft form and are open for consultation until January 18, 2019, which will give organizations an opportunity to provide comments and raise additional questions in an effort to obtain further clarification from the EDPB on these important scoping questions.
Under Article 3 of the GDPR, the law applies to organizations that process personal data in three circumstances:
- When a controller or processor is established in the EU and processes personal data in the context of the activities of that establishment;
- When a controller or processor is not established in the EU but processes personal data relating to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EU; or
- When a controller or processor is not established in the EU but monitors the behavior of individuals in the EU.
Given the extensive obligations imposed by the GDPR and the onerous enforcement regime, global organizations have been rightly focused on how their own data processing activities may (or may not) fit within the scope of Article 3. While the Guidelines do not resolve all of these questions, they do provide some clarity. We have summarized and assessed the key aspects of the Guidelines below.
- For controllers and processors that are located in the EU, the Guidelines reiterate that the GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by those EU establishments regarding all data subjects, regardless of their location or nationality. For example, the processing of personal data by a French controller relating to customers in the U.S. is subject to the GDPR. As a practical matter, this means that the GDPR will apply in full with respect to this processing, including with respect to data subject rights available under the GDPR, which in this hypothetical would be conferred upon the controller’s customers in the U.S.
- A non-EU controller that is not otherwise subject to the GDPR will not become subject to the GDPR merely because a data processor located in the EU processes personal data on its behalf. This reiterates the conventional interpretation of Article 3, as this non-EU controller would not be established in the EU, nor would it be offering goods or services to individuals in the EU or monitoring behavior in the EU on account of retaining an EU processor.
- If a controller subject to the GDPR uses a non-EU processor that is not otherwise subject to the GDPR, that processor will not become directly subject to the GDPR on account of this processing. Notably, the Guidelines state that “the existence of a relationship between a controller and a processor does not necessarily trigger the application of the GDPR to both, should one of these two entities not be established in the Union.” Instead, the controller subject to the GDPR will need to execute an Article 28 agreement with the non-EU processor. As a practical matter, this means that, from a contractual perspective, the processor will be subject to many of the same substantive obligations imposed on processors subject to the GDPR. This also means, however, that breaches of these Article 28 contractual obligations by such processors will only be enforceable as breaches of contract, not as direct GDPR infringements.
- With regards to controllers or processors that are not established in the EU but process personal data relating to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EU, the Guidelines confirm that the key factor for determining scope is whether the controller or processor intends to “target” individuals in the EU. The mere accessibility of a website from the EU, for example, is insufficient. The Guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of nine factors that may indicate an intention to offer goods or services to individuals in the EU, including running marketing campaigns aimed at an EU audience, the use of EU-related domain names, the provision of dedicated contact telephone numbers for individuals in the EU, and the delivery of goods to locations in the EU.
- With regards to controllers or processors that are not established in the EU but monitor the behavior of individuals in the EU, the Guidelines acknowledge that unlike the “offer of goods or services” prong discussed above, the “monitoring” prong does not include an “intention to target” criteria for purposes of determining application of the GDPR. The Guidelines do, however, provide clarity with respect to the “monitoring” prong by stating that “the EDPB does not consider that any online collection or analysis of personal data of individuals in the EU would automatically count as ‘monitoring’.” Rather, the EDPB states that “the use of the word ‘monitoring’ implies that the controller has a specific purpose in mind for the collection and subsequent reuse of the relevant data about an individual’s behaviour within the EU.” This is an important clarification, as it implies a degree of intentionality must be present with respect to the collection and reuse of personal data of individuals in the EU by organizations outside the EU for it to constitute cognizable “monitoring.” Accordingly, a website based in the U.S. that is focused on the U.S. market does not necessarily fall within the scope of the GDPR simply on account of the fact that an individual in the EU visits the website and the website engages in automated data collection. For the GDPR to apply, the U.S. website would need to have a “specific purpose in mind” with respect to its collection and reuse of the EU visitor’s personal data, which is unlikely for a business singularly focused on the U.S. market.
- The Guidelines recommend that Article 27 representatives should be located in the EU Member State in which the majority of data subjects whose personal data are processed are located. In addition, the Guidelines confirm that, in principle, enforcement action for non-compliance with the GDPR by the controller or processor could be initiated against the EU representative “in the same way as against controllers or processors,” including the possibility of imposing administrative fines and penalties.
There was an expectation that the Guidelines would provide guidance related to how the restrictions on transfers of personal data outside the EU are intended to coexist with the extraterritorial application of the GDPR, but the draft did not address this issue directly. Once the consultation period ends on January 18, 2019, we expect the Guidelines to be published in final form by April 2019.
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