Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On March 26, 2024, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) published the 2024 edition of its Practice Guide for the Security of Personal Data (the “Guide”). The Guide is intended to support organizations in their efforts to implement adequate security measures in compliance with their obligations under Article 32 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. In particular, the Guide targets DPOs, CISOs, computer scientists and privacy lawyers.

On January 15, 2024, the European Commission released its “report on the first review of the functioning of the Adequacy Decisions adopted pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC” (the “Report”). The Report details the results of the European Commission’s assessment of whether 11 jurisdictions (Andorra, Argentina, Canada, the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay) that benefit from Adequacy Decisions adopted under the repealed Directive 95/46/EC still offer sufficient guarantees to maintain adequacy status under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On October 11, 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published a new set of guidelines addressing the research and development of AI systems from a data protection perspective (the “Guidelines”).

On September 21, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an opinion on the UK Government’s assessment of adequacy for the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “UK Extension”). The ICO provides that, while it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to conclude that the UK Extension provides an adequate level of data protection and lay regulations to that effect, there are four specific areas that could pose risks to UK data subjects if the protections identified are not properly applied. These four risks are: 

Pablo A. Palazzi from Allende & Brea in Argentina reports that on June 30, 2023, the Argentine Executive Branch sent the new proposed Personal Data Protection Bill (the “Bill”) to the National Congress for consideration. The Bill was drafted by the Argentine Data Protection Authority (Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública, or “AAIP”) and seeks to amend the current Personal Data Protection Act (Law No. 25,326 of 2000).

On July 10, 2023, the European Commission formally adopted a new adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Adequacy Decision”). The adoption of this Adequacy Decision follows years of intense negotiations between the EU and the U.S., after the invalidation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case.

On July 3, 2023, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo issued a statement confirming that the U.S. has fulfilled its commitments for implementing the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Framework”). In the statement, it was confirmed that the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, have been designated as “qualifying states” for purposes of implementing the redress mechanism established under Executive Order 14086, such designation to be become effective upon the adoption of an adequacy decision by the EU for the Framework. Further, according to the statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed that the U.S. Intelligence Community has adopted its policies and procedures pursuant to Executive Order 14086.

On May 11, 2023, at a plenary session, the European Parliament voted to adopt a resolution on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Framework”) which calls on the European Commission (the “Commission”) to continue negotiations with its U.S. counterparts with the aim of creating a mechanism that would ensure equivalence and provide the adequate level of protection required by EU data protection law.  The text was adopted with 306 votes in favor, 27 against and 231 abstaining. This resolution follows the draft motion (summary available here) which was published in February 2023 and urged the Commission not to adopt adequacy based on the Framework.

On March 8, 2023, the UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Michelle Donelan, introduced the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill to UK Parliament. The first version of the reform bill was originally proposed by the UK government in July 2022, but was put on pause during September 2022. 

On February 28, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued its Opinion 5/2023 on the European Commission Draft Implementing Decision on the adequate protection of personal data under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (the “Opinion”). In the Opinion, the EDPB recognized substantial improvements in the proposed EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”) when compared to Privacy Shield, whilst also stating that a number of aspects of the DPF need to be clarified, developed or further detailed.

On February 14, 2023, in a Draft Motion for a Resolution on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the proposed EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Framework”), the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (the “Committee”) urged the European Commission not to adopt adequacy based on the Framework, on the basis that it “fails to create actual equivalence” with the EU in the level of data protection that it provides.

On December 13, 2022, the European Commission launched the process for the adoption of an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If adopted, the long-awaited adequacy decision will provide EU companies transferring personal data to the U.S. with an additional mechanism to legitimize their transfers.

An adequacy decision would foster trans-Atlantic data flows and address the concerns raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) judgment in the Schrems II case.

On April 7, 2022, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) released a statement on the announcement of a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (the “Statement”).

On February 10, 2022, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) ruled the transfer of EU personal data from the EU to the U.S. through the use of the Google Analytics cookie to be unlawful. In its decision, the CNIL held that an organization using Google Analytics was in violation of the GDPR’s data transfer requirements. The CNIL ordered the organization to comply with the GDPR, and to stop using Google Analytics, if necessary.

On February 2, 2022, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €250,000 fine against the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) for several alleged infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), following an investigation into IAB Europe Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”).

On February 2, 2022, the Secretary of State placed the UK Information Commissioner’s Office's (“ICO's ”) final international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”) and international data transfer addendum to the European Commission’s standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for international data transfers (“Addendum”) before the European Parliament. The IDTA and Addendum are set to come into force on March 21, 2022, but the ICO advises that they are of use to organizations immediately. The ICO also has stated that it intends to publish additional guidance on use of the IDTA and Addendum.

View the ICO’s final drafts of the IDTA and Addendum.

The Austrian data protection authority (the “Austrian DPA”) recently published a decision in a case brought against an Austrian website provider and Google by the non-governmental organization co-founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, None of Your Business (“NOYB”). The Austrian DPA ruled that the use of Google Analytics cookies by the website operator violates both Chapter V of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which establishes rules on international data transfers, and the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

On December 17, 2021, the European Commission announced that it had adopted its adequacy decision on the Republic of Korea. The adequacy decision allows for the free flow of personal data between the EU and Korea, without any further need for authorization or additional transfer tool. The adequacy decision also covers transfers of personal data between public authorities.

On  November 27, 2021, the UAE Cabinet Office enacted its first federal Personal Data Protection Law (Federal Decree Law No. 45 of 2021, the “UAE Data Protection Law”). The UAE Data Protection Law will come into force on January 2, 2022.

On September 10, 2021, the UK Government Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (“DCMS”) launched a consultation on its proposed reforms to the UK data protection regime. The consultation reflects DCMS’s effort to deliver on Mission 2 of the National Data Strategy, which is “to secure a pro-growth and trusted data regime in the UK.” Organizations are encouraged to provide input on a range of data protection proposals, some of which are outlined below. The consultation will close on November 19, 2021, and the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) will consult with members to prepare a formal response to the consultation.

On August 19, 2021, the Belgian Council of State confirmed a decision of the regional Flemish Authorities to contract with an EU branch of a U.S. company using Amazon Web Services (“AWS”).

This week, the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications (the “Minister”) announced that the UAE would introduce a new federal data protection law (“Data Protection Law”), the first federal law of its kind in the UAE. The Data Protection Law is one of the initiatives to be implemented under the recently published “Principles of the 50,” a charter of 10 strategic principles that will guide the political, economic and social development of the UAE for the next 50 years.

On August 27, 2021, the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (“Swiss DPA”) announced that the new EU Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) may be relied on to legitimize transfers of personal data from Switzerland to countries without an adequate level of data protection, provided that the necessary amendments and adaptations are made for use under Swiss data protection law.

On August 26, 2021, the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) made news by publishing a document indicating its intent to begin making adequacy decisions for UK data transfers to foreign jurisdictions and by announcing its preferred candidate for the position of new UK Information Commissioner.

On June 28, 2021, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted two adequacy decisions for the United Kingdom, one under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and another under the Law Enforcement Directive. Their adoption means organizations in the EU can continue to transfer personal data to organizations in the UK without restriction, and will not need to rely upon data transfer mechanisms, such as the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, to ensure an adequate level of protection. The adoption comes just before the conditional interim regime under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, under which data could flow freely from the EU to the UK, was set to expire on June 30, 2021.

On May 26, 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of R (Open Rights Group and the3million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 800, finding that the UK 2018 Data Protection Act’s (“DPA 2018”) “immigration exemption” is unlawful.

On May 11, 2021, the European Parliament issued a press release requesting that the European Commission amend its draft decisions on UK adequacy to more closely align with EU court rulings and the opinion of the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”). The request came after the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (the “Committee”) passed a resolution evaluating the Commission’s approach regarding the adequacy of the UK’s data protection regime. The Members of European Parliament (“MEPs”) stated that if the Commission’s implementing decisions are adopted without amendment, transfers of personal data to the UK should be suspended when there is the potential for indiscriminate access to personal data.

On April 27, 2021, the Portuguese Data Protection Authority (Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados, the “CNPD”) ordered the National Institute of Statistics (the “INE”) to suspend, within 12 hours, any international transfers of personal data to the U.S. or other third countries that have not been recognized as providing an adequate level of data protection.

On April 14, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) announced that it had adopted its Opinion on the draft UK adequacy decision issued by the European Commission on February 19, 2021. The EDPB’s Opinion is non-binding but will be persuasive. The adequacy decision will be formally adopted if it is approved by the EU Member States acting through the European Council. If the adequacy decision is adopted, transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK may continue following the end of the post-Brexit transition period without the implementation of a data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), such as Standard Contractual Clauses.

On March 30, 2021, the European Commission (the “Commission”) announced the successful conclusion of the adequacy talks with the Republic of Korea.

On March 19, 2021, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (“DCMS”) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) with respect to new UK adequacy assessments following the UK’s departure from the European Union. The MoU sets out how DCMS and third countries will negotiate adequacy decisions, referred to under the MoU as “adequacy regulations”. These permit the free transfer of personal data collected in the UK to the relevant “adequate” jurisdiction.

On February 19, 2021, the European Commission published a draft data protection adequacy decision relating to the UK. If the draft decision is adopted, organizations in the EU will be able to continue to transfer personal data to organizations in the UK without restriction, and will not need to rely upon data transfer mechanisms, such as the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, to ensure an adequate level of protection.

On December 24, 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in principle on the historic EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the “Trade Agreement”). For data protection purposes, there is a further transition period of up to six months to enable the European Commission to complete its adequacy assessment of the UK’s data protection laws. For the time being, personal data can continue to be exported from the EU to the UK without implementing additional safeguards.

On November 10, 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining the data protection considerations that arise on the UK’s departure from the EU. The UK’s Brexit transition period ends on December 31, 2020, and it is not clear whether the EU will formally recognize the UK’s data protection regime as ‘adequate.’ What does this mean for companies’ plans to update their data transfer mechanisms? Is adequacy the holy grail it is widely believed to be? What other issues must be considered? Is there still time?

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth (“CIPL”) and the Data Security Council of India (“DSCI”) have published a report on Enabling Accountable Data Transfers from India to the United States under India’s Proposed Personal Data Protection Bill (the “Report”).

On September 8, 2020, the Swiss Data Protection Authority (the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner, “FDPIC”), announced in a position statement that it no longer considers the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield adequate for the purposes of transfers of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S. This decision follows the July 2020 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case, which invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for EU-U.S. transfers of personal data. This ruling was considered as part of the annual review of the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework by the FDPIC since, as Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it is not bound by the CJEU ruling.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued two new sets of FAQs in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) recent decision to invalidate the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in Schrems II. We previously reported on the Schrems II ruling and its implication for businesses that transfer personal data to the U.S. The new FAQs from the Department of Commerce address the impact of the decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

In a case that has garnered widespread interest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will deliver its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020, determining the validity of the controller–to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a cross-border data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). If the SCCs are invalidated, the judgment would deliver a significant blow to the numerous businesses that rely on them, leaving many scrambling to find a suitable alternative transfer mechanism. Even if the SCCs survive, they may become more cumbersome to use.

On July 9, 2020, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled: “Getting ready for changes – Communication on readiness at the end of the transition period between the European Union and the United Kingdom” (the “Communication”).

On April 21, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted Guidelines on the processing of health data for scientific purposes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the Guidelines is to provide clarity on the most urgent matters relating to health data, such as legal basis for processing, the implementation of adequate safeguards and the exercise of data subject rights.

On May 27, 2019, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (A.D. 2019) (the “PDPA”), which was passed by the National Legislative Assembly on February 28, 2019, was finally published in the Government Gazette, and thus became effective on May 28, 2019. Although now effective, the main operative provisions concerning personal data protection (including requests for data subjects’ consent; collection/use and disclosure of personal data; rights of data subjects; complaints; civil liabilities and penalties) will not come into force until one year after their ...

On February 28, 2019, Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly finally approved and endorsed the draft Personal Data Protection Act (the “PDPA”), which will now be submitted for royal endorsement and subsequent publication in the Government Gazette. Publication is anticipated to occur within the next few weeks.

At its plenary meeting on February 13, 2019, in Brussels, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted an Information Note on Data Transfers under the GDPR in the Event of a No-Deal Brexit, and an Information Note on BCRs for Companies Which Have ICO as BCR Lead Supervisory Authority.

On January 23, 2019, the European Commission announced that it has adopted its adequacy decision on Japan (the “Adequacy Decision”). According to the announcement, Japan has adopted an equivalent decision and the adequacy arrangement is applicable with immediate effect.

The Agency of Access to Public Information (Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública) (“AAIP”) has approved a set of guidelines for binding corporate rules (“BCRs”), a mechanism that multinational companies may use in cross-border data transfers to affiliates in countries with inadequate data protection regimes under the AAIP.

At its October monthly meeting, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) adopted new reliability standards addressing cybersecurity risks associated with the global supply chain for Bulk Electric System (“BES”) Cyber Systems. The new standards expand the scope of the mandatory and enforceable cybersecurity standards applicable to the electric utility sector. They will require electric utilities and transmission grid operators to develop and implement plans that include security controls for supply chain management for industrial control systems, hardware, software and services. 

On September 5, 2018, the European Commission (the “Commission”) announced in a press release the launch of the procedure to formally adopt the Commission’s adequacy decision with respect to Japan.

On July 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ireland granted Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) leave to appeal a lower court’s ruling sending a privacy case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems challenged Facebook’s data transfer practices, arguing that Facebook’s use of standard contractual clauses failed to adequately protect EU citizens’ data. Schrems, supported by Irish Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon, argued that the case belonged in the CJEU, the EU’s highest judicial body. The High Court agreed. Facebook’s request to appeal followed.

On July 17, 2018, the European Union and Japan successfully concluded negotiations on a reciprocal finding of an adequate level of data protection, thereby agreeing to recognize each other’s data protection systems as “equivalent.” This will allow personal data to flow safely between the EU and Japan, without being subject to any further safeguards or authorizations. 

On May 30, 2018, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”), replacing the Article 29 Working Party, published the final version of Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations in the context of international data transfers and draft Guidelines 1/2018 on certification under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). 

On January 30, 2018, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (“DRIPA”) was inconsistent with EU law. The judgment, pertaining to the now-expired act, is relevant to current UK surveillance practices and is likely to result in major amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (“IP Act”), the successor of DRIPA.

On October 18, 2017, the EU Commission (“Commission”) released its report and accompanying working document on the first annual review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework (collectively, the “Report”). The Report states that the Privacy Shield framework continues to ensure an adequate level of protection for personal data that is transferred from the EU to the U.S. It also indicates that U.S. authorities have put in place the necessary structures and procedures to ensure the proper functioning of the Privacy Shield, including by providing new redress possibilities for EU individuals and instituting appropriate safeguards regarding government access to personal data. The Report also states that Privacy Shield-related complaint-handling and enforcement procedures have been properly established.

On October 3, 2017, the Irish High Court referred a legal challenge to the validity of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for resolution. Max Schrems, who had previously successfully challenged the validity of the now defunct U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Program in the Schrems case, had brought a similar claim in relation to the SCCs, and had requested that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) declare that the SCCs do not provide sufficient protection when personal data is transferred outside the EU to the US and thus are invalid. The Irish DPC declined to make such a ruling, but instead referred the case to the Irish High Court, and requested that the case be referred to the CJEU for a final decision on the validity of the SCCs.

As reported in BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, on August 9, 2017, the Russian privacy regulator, Roskomnadzor, expanded its list of nations that provide sufficient privacy protections to allow transfers of personal data from Russia. Russian law allows data transfers to countries that are signatories to the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (the “Convention”), and to certain other non-signatory countries deemed by Roskomnadzor to have adequate privacy protections based on relevant data protection laws, privacy regulators and penalties for privacy law violations.

On August 7, 2017, the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a Statement of Intent setting out the planned reforms to be included in the forthcoming Data Protection Bill, which we previously reported is expected to be laid before the UK Parliament in early September.

On July 18, 2017, the European Union Committee of the UK’s House of Lords published its paper, Brexit: the EU data protection package (the “Paper”). The Paper urges the UK government to make good on its stated aim of maintaining unhindered and uninterrupted data flows between the UK and EU after Brexit, and examines the options available to ensure that this occurs. It warns that data flows have become so valuable to cross-border business that failure to establish an adequate framework could hamper EU-UK trade.

On May 29, 2017, a high-level EU Commission official and Politico reported that the primary objective of the first annual joint review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) is not to obtain more concessions from the U.S. regarding Europeans’ privacy safeguards, but rather to monitor the current U.S. administration’s work and steer U.S. privacy debates to prevent privacy safeguards from deteriorating. On March 31, 2017, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Věra Jourová, announced that the joint review will take place in September 2017.

On March 1, 2017, Hunton & Williams senior consultant attorney Rosemary Jay presented evidence on the data protection reform package and the impact of Brexit to the UK Parliament’s House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee meeting. 

On February 15, 2017, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) published its Priorities for 2017 (the “EDPS Priorities”). The EDPS Priorities consist of a note listing the strategic priorities and a color-coded table listing the European Commission’s proposals that require the EDPS’ attention, sorted by level of priority.

On February 1, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced a $3.2 million civil monetary penalty against Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (“Children’s”) for alleged ongoing violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules, following two consecutive breaches of patient electronic protected health information (“ePHI”). This is the third enforcement action taken by OCR in 2017, following the respective actions taken against MAPFRE Life Insurance of Puerto Rico and Presence Health earlier in January.

On February 1, 2017, Matt Hancock, the UK Government Minister responsible for data protection, was questioned by the House of Lords committee on the UK’s implementation plan of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in the context of the UK’s looming exit from the EU. In responding to the questioning, Hancock revealed further details into the UK Government’s position on implementing the GDPR into UK law.

On February 2, 2017, the UK government published a white paper entitled The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union (the “white paper”). The white paper strikes a conciliatory tone, making it clear that the UK intends to maintain close ties with the European Union and its 27 remaining Member States after Brexit. A large portion of the white paper is devoted to discussing the issues at the heart of the 2016 Brexit referendum, such as immigration controls, continuing trade with the EU and the protection of individuals’ rights conferred under EU law. Among the rights addressed is the free flow of personal data between the UK and the EU.

On January 19, 2017, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) released a draft Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 – Cyber Security – Supply Chain Risk Management (the “Proposed Standard”). The Proposed Standard addresses directives of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) in Order No. 829 to develop a new or modified reliability standard to address “supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations.” 

On January 10, 2017, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released proposed updates to the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Cybersecurity Framework”). The proposed updates, which are found in Version 1.1 of the Cybersecurity Framework, are derived from feedback received by NIST regarding the first version, including from responses to a December 2015 request for information and discussions at a workshop held in April 2016.

On December 21, 2016, a judgment by the Court of Justice for the European Union (the “CJEU”) that clarifies EU surveillance laws has called into question the legality of the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The decision in Case C-698/15 could have significant implications on the UK’s chances of securing “adequacy” status for its data protection regime post-Brexit.

On November 18, 2016, the Argentina Data Protection Agency (“DPA”) announced that it had issued DNPDP Disposition 60 –  a new regulation on international transfers of personal data (the “Regulation”). 

A recent update on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU’s”) website has revealed that Digital Rights Ireland, an Irish privacy advocacy group, has filed an action for annulment against the European Commission’s adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”).

Earlier this month, at a meeting of the Article 31 Committee, the European Commission (“Commission”) unveiled two draft Commission Implementing Decisions that propose amendments to the existing adequacy decisions and decisions on EU Model Clauses.

On September 8, 2016, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued his Opinion on the compatibility of the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer of passenger name record data (“PNR Agreement”) with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“EU Charter”). This is the first time that the CJEU has been called upon to issue a ruling on the compatibility of a draft international agreement with the EU Charter.

On July 26, 2016, Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, the Chairwoman of the Article 29 Working Party of data protection regulators, announced that EU data protection regulators will not challenge the adequacy of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) for at least one year (i.e., until after summer 2017). The European Commission is scheduled to conduct a mandatory review of the adequacy of the Privacy Shield by May 2017.

On July 12, 2016, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Věra Jourová, and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker announced the formal adoption of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”) framework, composed of an Adequacy Decision and accompanying Annexes.

On July 8, 2016, EU representatives on the Article 31 Committee approved the final version of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) to permit transatlantic transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S.

According to Bloomberg BNA, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework could be approved by the European Commission in early July. The Privacy Shield is a successor framework to the Safe Harbor, which was invalidated by the European Court of Justice in October 2015. Certain provisions of the Privacy Shield documents, previously released by the European Commission on February 29, 2016, have been subjected to criticism by the Article 29 Working Party, the European Parliament and the European Data Protection Supervisor. According to Bloomberg BNA, the previously released draft adequacy decision, one of the Privacy Shield documents released on February 29, 2016, is expected to be modified.

On May 26, 2016, the European Parliament approved a resolution calling for the European Commission to reopen negotiations with U.S. authorities on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”), and to implement the recommendations of the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) on the draft Privacy Shield adequacy decision.

The Working Party had previously published its recommendations in an Opinion regarding the draft decision issued by the European Commission on adequacy of the protection provided by the Privacy Shield. In the Opinion, the Working Party highlighted a number of key issues concerning access to European personal data by law enforcement and government agencies, and also recommended a number of changes to ensure that European citizens’ data are adequately protected.

On February 29, 2016, the European Commission issued the legal texts that will implement the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. These texts include a draft adequacy decision from the European Commission, Frequently Asked Questions and a Communication summarizing the steps that have been taken in the last few years to restore trust in transatlantic data flows.

The agreement in support of the new EU-U.S. transatlantic data transfer framework, known as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, was reached on February 2, 2016, between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission. Once adopted, the adequacy decision will establish that the safeguards provided when transferring personal data pursuant to the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield are equivalent to the EU data protection standards. In addition, the European Commission has stated that the new framework reflects the requirements that were set forth by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the recent Schrems decision.

On February 2, 2016, a new EU-U.S. transatlantic data transfer agreement was reached. Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, presented the new agreement to the European Commission (the “Commission”) today. According to the Commission’s press release, the new agreement will be called the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.

On January 5, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that dental office management software provider, Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc. (“Schein”), agreed to settle FTC charges that accused the company of falsely advertising the level of encryption it used to protect patient data. The proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Order”) stems from an FTC complaint that alleged the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by falsely representing that the Dentrix G5 software used industry-standard encryption and helped dentists protect patient data in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).

On January 7, 2016, the European Data Protection Supervisor (the “EDPS”) published his Priorities for 2016. The EDPS Priorities consists of a cover note listing the strategic priorities of the EDPS in 2016 and a color-coded table listing the European Commission’s proposals that require the EDPS’ attention, per level of priority.

In line with the EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 unveiled in March 2015, the EDPS will set his focus on the following areas of strategic importance:

On December 21, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced software company Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) has agreed to settle FTC charges that accused the company of misrepresenting the security of its software updates. The proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Order”) stems from an FTC complaint that alleged the company had deceived consumers about the security provided by updates to the Java Platform, Standard Edition software (“Java SE”).

On December 14, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced that it had settled potential HIPAA Security Rule violations with the University of Washington on behalf of the university’s medical center, medical school and affiliated labs and clinics (collectively, “UW Medical”).

On December 17, 2015, after three years of drafting and negotiations, the European Parliament and Council of the European Union reached an informal agreement on the final draft of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”), which is backed by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

On November 19, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published guidance, including a set of frequently asked questions, to assist companies that are transferring personal data to the U.S. pursuant to the Safe Harbor framework.

On November 6, 2015, the European Commission published a communication and a Q&A document addressed to the European Parliament and European Council on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”), following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On Monday, November 2, 2015, Hunton & Williams LLP’s Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) Senior Policy Advisor, Fred H. Cate, moderated an academic panel on The Data Dilemma: A Transatlantic Discussion on Privacy, Security, Innovation, Trade, and the Protection of Personal Data in the 21st Century. The event was sponsored by Indiana University and took place at the CIEE Global Institute in Berlin, Germany.

On November 3, 2015, John Murphy, Senior Vice President for International Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testified about the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Decision at a joint hearing of the House Commerce and Communications and Technology Subcommittees.

On October 27, 2015, David Smith, the UK Deputy Commissioner of the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), published a blog post commenting on the ongoing Safe Harbor compliance debate in light of the Schrems v. Facebook decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. His key message to organizations was, “Don’t panic.”

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) recently released the final draft of its report entitled De-Identification of Personal Information. The report stems from a review conducted by NIST of various de-identification techniques for removal of personal information from computerized documents. While de-identification techniques are widely used, there is concern that existing techniques are insufficient to protect personal privacy because certain remaining information can make it possible to re-identify individuals.

On Monday, October 26, 2015, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Věra Jourová, gave a speech before the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE Committee”) on the recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) that invalidated the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision. The EU Commissioner welcomed the Article 29 Working Party’s statement and, in particular, its support for a new Safe Harbor framework by January 31, 2016. However, the EU Commissioner called for more clarity in the meantime. Accordingly, she announced that the European Commission will soon issue an explanatory document on the consequences of the CJEU’s ruling to provide guidance for businesses on international data transfers.

On October 26, 2015, the German federal and state data protection authorities (the “German DPAs”) published a joint position paper on Safe Harbor and potential alternatives for transfers of data to the U.S. (the “Position Paper”).

On October 14, 2015, the data protection authority (“DPA”) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein (Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz) issued a position paper (the “Position Paper”) on the Safe Harbor Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”).

On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its judgment in the Schrems v. Facebook case, following the Opinion of the Advocate General published on September 23, 2015. In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that:

• The national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) have the power to investigate and suspend international data transfers even where the European Commission (the “Commission”) has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of data protection, such as Decision 2000/520 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (the “Safe Harbor Decision”).
• The Safe Harbor Decision is invalid.

On September 22, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the Cloud Select Industry Group (“C-SIG”) Code of Conduct on data protection for Cloud Service Providers (the “Code”). In the Opinion, the Working Party analyzes the Code that was drafted by the Cloud Select Industry Group (the “C-SIG”).

On September 23, 2015, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice Yves Bot issued his Opinion in the case of Max Schrems, which is currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). In the opinion, the Advocate General provided his views concerning two key issues related to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework: (1) the powers of national data protection authorities to investigate and suspend international data transfers made under the Safe Harbor Framework and (2) the ongoing validity of the European Commission’s Safe Harbor adequacy decision (Decision 2000/520).

On August 20, 2015, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (“CIPL”) filed comments to the Indonesian Draft Regulation proposed by the Minister of Communication and Information (RPM) of the Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Systems. The comments were limited to the issue of cross-border data transfers and were submitted in the form of a new CIPL white paper entitled Cross-Border Data Transfer Mechanisms.

On November 24, 2014, the Polish President Bronisław Komorowski signed into law a bill that was passed by Polish Parliament on November 7, 2014, which amends, among other laws, certain provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act 1997. As a result of the amendments, data controllers will be able to transfer personal data to jurisdictions that do not provide an “adequate level” of data protection without obtaining the prior approval of the Polish Data Protection Authority (Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osbowych or “GIODO”), provided that they meet certain requirements specified under the bill. In addition, the bill amends Polish law so that it is no longer mandatory to appoint an administrator of information security (administrator bezpieczeństwa informacji or “ABI”). An ABI is similar to a data protection officer but an ABI has narrower responsibilities that predominantly concern data security.

On June 23, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published its Opinion 7/2014 on the protection of personal data in Québec (the “Opinion”). In this Opinion, the Working Party provides its recommendations to the European Commission on whether the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Québec and the Québec Act on the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector (the “Québec Privacy Act”) ensure an adequate level of protection for international data transfers in accordance with the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”). Under the Directive, strict conditions apply to personal data transfers to countries outside the European Economic Area that are not considered to provide an adequate level of data protection.

On May 9, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with clothing manufacturer American Apparel related to charges that the company falsely claimed to comply with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by deceptively representing, through statements in its privacy policy, that it held a current Safe Harbor certification even though it had allowed the certification to expire.