Author Archives: Claude-Etienne Armingaud

Cyber Securi-Tea or Coffee The Data Act or the multiverse of data

October 15th, 2024 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Conference | Europe | IT - (0 Comments)

Dans le cadre de notre nouveau cycle de conférences autour du numérique et des problématiques « cyber », nous avons le plaisir de vous convier à un petit déjeuner organisé dans nos locaux parisiens, à l’occasion duquel Claude-Etienne Armingaud, CIPP/E (Associé, Protection des données & Technologies) se penchera sur la préparation des entreprises dans le cadre de leur mise en conformité au regard du Règlement sur les Données (EU Data Act). Une belle occasion d’échanger, de s’inspirer et d’entrer en relation avec des professionnels du domaine !

Les places étant limitées, nous vous invitons à vous inscrire dès à présent via le lien suivant : https://ow.ly/183L50TAWbP.

Access official publication on EDPB website.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These guidelines analyse the criteria set down in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR that controllers must meet to lawfully engage in the processing of personal data that is “necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party”.

Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is one of the six legal bases for the lawful processing of personal data envisaged by the GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR should neither be treated as a “last resort” for rare or unexpected situations where other legal bases are deemed not to apply nor should it be automatically chosen or its use unduly extended on the basis of a perception that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is less constraining than other legal bases.

For processing to be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, three cumulative conditions must be fulfilled:

  • First, the pursuit of a legitimate interest by the controller or by a third party;
  • Second, the need to process personal data for the purposes of the legitimate interest(s) pursued; and
  • Third, the interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of the concerned data subjects do not take precedence over the legitimate interest(s) of the controller or of a third party.

In order to determine whether a given processing of personal data may be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, controllers should carefully assess and document whether these three cumulative conditions are met. This assessment should be done before carrying out the relevant processing operations.

With regard to the condition relating to the pursuit of a legitimate interest, not all interests of the controller or a third party may be deemed legitimate; only those interests that are lawful, precisely articulated and present may be validly invoked to rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legal basis. It is also the responsibility of the controller to inform the data subject of the legitimate interests pursued where that processing is based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the processing of personal data be necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued, it should be ascertained whether the legitimate interests pursued cannot reasonably be achieved just as effectively by other means less restrictive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects, also taking into account the principles enshrined in Article 5(1) GDPR. If such other means exist, the processing may not be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the person concerned by the data processing do not take precedence over the legitimate interests of the controller or of a third party, that condition entails a balancing of the opposing rights and interests at issue which depends in principle on the specific circumstances of the relevant processing. The processing may take place only if the outcome of this balancing exercise is that the legitimate interests being pursued are not overridden by the data subjects’ interests, rights and freedoms.

A proper Article 6(1)(f) GDPR assessment is not a straightforward exercise. Rather, the assessment — and in particular the balancing of opposing interests and rights — requires full consideration of a number of factors, such as the nature and source of the relevant legitimate interest(s), the impact of the processing on the data subject and their reasonable expectations about the processing, and the existence of additional safeguards which could limit undue impact on the data subject. The present guidelines provide guidance on how such an assessment should be carried out in practice, including in a number of specific contexts (e.g., fraud prevention, direct marketing, information security, etc.) where this legal basis may be considered.

The guidelines also explain the relationship that exists between Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and a number of data subject rights under the GDPR.

(more…)

Version 1.0 – Adopted on 8 October 2024

These guidelines analyse the criteria set down in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR that controllers must meet to lawfully engage in the processing of personal data that is “necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party”.

Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is one of the six legal bases for the lawful processing of personal data envisaged by the GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR should neither be treated as a “last resort” for rare or unexpected situations where other legal bases are deemed not to apply nor should it be automatically chosen or its use unduly extended on the basis of a perception that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is less constraining than other legal bases.

For processing to be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, three cumulative conditions must be fulfilled: • First, the pursuit of a legitimate interest by the controller or by a third party; • Second, the need to process personal data for the purposes of the legitimate interest(s) pursued; and • Third, the interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of the concerned data subjects do not take precedence over the legitimate interest(s) of the controller or of a third party.

In order to determine whether a given processing of personal data may be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, controllers should carefully assess and document whether these three cumulative conditions are met. This assessment should be done before carrying out the relevant processing operations.

With regard to the condition relating to the pursuit of a legitimate interest, not all interests of the controller or a third party may be deemed legitimate; only those interests that are lawful, precisely articulated and present may be validly invoked to rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legal basis. It is also the responsibility of the controller to inform the data subject of the legitimate interests pursued where that processing is based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the processing of personal data be necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued, it should be ascertained whether the legitimate interests pursued cannot reasonably be achieved just as effectively by other means less restrictive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects, also taking into account the principles enshrined in Article 5(1) GDPR. If such other means exist, the processing may not be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

With regard to the condition that the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the person concerned by the data processing do not take precedence over the legitimate interests of the controller or of a third party, that condition entails a balancing of the opposing rights and interests at issue which depends in principle on the specific circumstances of the relevant processing. The processing may take place only if the outcome of this balancing exercise is that the legitimate interests being pursued are not overridden by the data subjects’ interests, rights and freedoms.

A proper Article 6(1)(f) GDPR assessment is not a straightforward exercise. Rather, the assessment — and in particular the balancing of opposing interests and rights — requires full consideration of a number of factors, such as the nature and source of the relevant legitimate interest(s), the impact of the processing on the data subject and their reasonable expectations about the processing, and the existence of additional safeguards which could limit undue impact on the data subject. The present guidelines provide guidance on how such an assessment should be carried out in practice, including in a number of specific contexts (e.g., fraud prevention, direct marketing, information security, etc.) where this legal basis may be considered.

The guidelines also explain the relationship that exists between Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and a number of data subject rights under the GDPR.

Go to the full Guidelines.

We kindly invite you to the K&L Gates Legal & Compliance Breakfast on 8 October 2024 in Frankfurt.

Please join us for coffee, tea and croissants and take away impulses and new momentum for the work on your data strategy.

We will discuss how the Data Act and the AI Act impact a company’s data strategy. How does one reconcile them with each other and with other elements of the legal framework, like GDPR and antitrust laws?

Our key note speaker will be Claude-Étienne Armingaud, a partner at K&L Gates‘ Paris office. He coordinates our European technology and privacy practices and has been building pragmatic legal solutions on both sides of the Atlantic for many years.

We look forward to welcoming you at our Frankfurt office on level 28 of the „Opernturm“ tower.

Please register by clicking here.

Guidelines 2023/02 on Technical Scope of Art. 5(3) of ePrivacy Directive

October 7th, 2024 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in cookies | Europe | Guidelines | Privacy - (0 Comments)

Version 2.0 – Adopted on 7 October 2024

Executive summary

In these Guidelines, the EDPB addresses the applicability of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive to different technical solutions. These Guidelines expand upon the Opinion 9/2014 of the Article 29 Working Party on the application of ePrivacy Directive to device fingerprinting and aim to provide a clear understanding of the technical operations covered by Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive.

The emergence of new tracking methods to both replace existing tracking tools (for example, cookies, due to discontinued support for third-party cookies by some browser vendors) and create new business models has become a critical data protection concern. While the applicability of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive is well established and implemented for some tracking technologies such as cookies, there is a need to address ambiguities related to the application of the said provision to emerging tracking tools.

The Guidelines identify three key elements for the applicability of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (section 2.1), namely ‘information’, ‘terminal equipment of a subscriber or user’ and ‘gaining access and ‘storage of information and stored information’. The Guidelines further provide a detailed analysis of each element (section 2.2-2.6).

In section 3, that analysis is applied to a non-exhaustive list of use cases representing common techniques, namely:

  • URL and pixel tracking
  • Local processing
  • Tracking based on IP only
  • Intermittent and mediated Internet of Things (IoT) reporting
  • Unique Identifier

Go to the full Guidelines.

AI The Future of Law Firms?

October 4th, 2024 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Artificial intelligence | Conference - (0 Comments)

Don’t miss the plenary session “AI, the future of law?” on Thursday, October 17 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Palais du Grand Large in Saint-Malo. This event, organized by the ACE – Young Lawyers commission, will be introduced by its president Ludovic Blanc (Lawyer at the Paris Bar, President of ACE-JA national).

Our partner Claude-Etienne Armingaud, CIPP/E (Partner, Data Protection & Technologies), François GIRAULT (Lawyer at the Montpellier Bar, President of the CNB Prospective and Innovation Commission, Vice-President ACE Ouest Méditerranée, Vice-President Liberal Professions CPME 34), Philippe BARON (Lawyer at 2BMP Avocats, President of the CNB Digital Commission) and Christiane Féral-Schuhl (Lawyer at the Paris Bar in digital law, former President of the National Council of Bars, former President of the Paris Bar Association) will participate in this essential discussion on the impact of AI on the legal profession.

This meeting will be hosted by Anne-Cécile Sarfati, journalist and columnist, with a Live Show presented by Tiphaine MARY (Maître et Talons), Lawyer at the Paris Bar.

Do not hesitate to reserve your place by registering via the following link: https://lnkd.in/gJQ7qqfV.

K&L Gates Short Listed for Leading Law Firm at PICCASO Privacy Awards

August 30th, 2024 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Europe | Privacy | Rankings - (0 Comments)

After being individually shortlisted as “Leader of the Year: Legal” in 2023, the full European Data Protection, Privacy and Security team of K&L Gates is once again recognized for its expertise by being shortlisted as “Leading Law Firm” for the Piccaso Awards Europe 2024.

Congrats to the team and see you in London!

14 Questions about the EU Data Act

August 27th, 2024 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Artificial Intelligence | Blockchain | Europe | IT | Legislation - (0 Comments)
  1. My company is not established in the EU. Should I really worry about the EU Data Act applying to my company?
  2. What are the operational impacts of the EU Data Act on my products‘ interface?
  3. My products are already on the market, can I still provide them as I am today?
  4. What data is in the EU Data Act scope?
  5. Does the EU Data Act provide for a harmonized framework for blockchain-based smart contracts?
  6. Who can request the sharing of data?
  7. How should data be made available?
  8. Are there any limitations on how the data can be shared?
  9. Can I invoke intellectual property right to forego the data sharing?
  10. Should the data be made available to public entities as well?
  11. Will I need to update my contracts as well?
  12. Will the data be required to stay in the European Union?
  13. When will all this become an operational reality for me?
  14. What are the EU Data Act penalties?
(more…)

Recent legislative updates have emerged in France, focusing on the intricate balance between national regulation and European Union directives —especially relevant to the evolving sector of commercial influence. The French law no. 2024-356, passed on 22 April 2024 (“DADDUE Law”), has granted the government a nine-month window to modify previous statutes to align with European standards.

The DADDUE Law will harmonize French national law (notably Law no. 2023-451 on the Regulation of commercial influence of 09 June 2023, see our previous post on this topic) with various European texts, including the e-commerce directive and directives like the DSA and SMA.

Among the articles set for revision are:

  • Article 1 regarding the definition of influence;
  • Article 2 on influencers’ agents;
  • Article 4 on prohibited sectors of promotion;
  • Article 5 on advertising disclosure requirements;
  • Article 8 on the framework of contracts between influencers and agents; and
  • Article 9 on insurance mandates for non-European influencers.

This underscores an initiative to refine the French national law on commercial influence in response to feedback from the European Commission.

The DADDUE Law will also repeal five articles within the prior law (articles 10, 11, 12, 15, and 18) that intersect with the Digital Services Act (DSA), on the obligations for hosting providers to implement alert systems for reporting illegal content and to comply promptly with legal and administrative injunctions to remove such content.

Furthermore, a government report will be presented within the next three months to address the necessary adjustments to Law no. 2023-566 on setting a digital majority age and battling online hatred, again drawing on remarks from the European Commission.

The path paved by the Law of 22 April 2024 requires a meticulous approach to legislative adaptation, ensuring that national regulations resonate with broader, collective European goals. This development is pivotal for professionals within the digital influence sphere and platforms hosting user-generated content, who must stay abreast of the changing legal landscape to sustain compliance and foster responsible online interactions.

First publicationK&L Gates Fashion Law Watch Blog – in collaboration with Kenza Berrada

Decree No. 2024-388 and Its Implications for Intermediation Platforms

June 10th, 2024 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in France | Legislation | Privacy - (0 Comments)

Digital intermediation service platforms within the sectors of chauffeur-driven transportation and goods delivery have new responsibilities since the enactment of Decree no. 2024-388 on 25 Avril 2024. Operating under the framework established by Article L. 7345-1 of the French Labor Code, this Decree has initiated a systematic collection and transmission protocol for data concerning platform workers’ activities to the French Employment Platforms Social Relations Authority (“ARPE”).

This new system aims to bolster the production of statistical reports, as instrumental means to inform and transform the dialogue with the representative organizations.

Along these lines, platforms hold an equally important responsibility to revise their privacy notices. Transparency is paramount—the notices must clearly articulate these new data processing operations to the individuals concerned, ensuring that workers are fully aware of how their personal data is captured, utilized, and shared.

The implementation of Decree no. 2024-388 also signals a proactive step towards enhancing social dialogue tools within the affected sectors. Empowering ARPE to collect and leverage the data within its statutory power creates an opening for more informed policy-making and a more significant discourse between platforms, workers, and representative organizations.

The inception of the Decree manifests a shift towards a more transparent and regulated digital labor market. It requires those in authority—data controllers and intermediation platforms alike—to engage in a comprehensive update of operational protocols and privacy frameworks, thereby securing data subject rights while contributing to a broader socio-economic analysis. Such task will necessitate a keen understanding of both legal obligations and the ethical standards underscoring the digital economy.

The crucial evolution underlying the enactment of the Decree will require Platforms acting as data controllers to update in alignment their records of processing activities (RoPA) and meticulously document the nature, purpose, scope of data processed and the operational procedures for transferring requisite data to the ARPE.

First publicationK&L Gates Cyber Law Watch Blog– in collaboration with Kenza Berrada