Closing in on the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced on 22 May 2023 that it had fined Meta for EUR 1,2b (USD 1.3b), the highest GDPR fine levied since 2018.

Further to the DPC decision (Decision), and in addition to the record fine, Meta will need to:

  • suspend any future transfers of personal data to the United States within five months from the date of notification of the decision to Meta Ireland;
  • ensure the compliance of its data processing operations by ceasing the unlawful processing, including storage, in the United States of personal data of its users in the European Economic Area, transferred without sufficient safeguards, within six months from the date of notification of the DPC’s decision to Meta Ireland.

The core of the grievances relates to a decade-long (and going) crusade initiated by datactivist Maximilien Schrems and its data protection association, None of Your Business (noyb). The crusade started in 2013, with a first step resulting in a resounding cancelation of the Safe Harbor framework, which allowed personal data to be freely transferred from the European Union to the United States, in the 2015 Schrems I case (see our Alert). It was subsequently followed by a same action against Safe Habor’s successor, the Privacy Shield Framework, leading to the same result in the Schrems II case (see our Alerts here, here and here).

(more…)

Version 2.1 – Adopted on 24 May 2023

Version history

Version 1.013 April 2021Adoption of the Guidelines for public consultation
Version 2.024 May 2023Adoption of the Guidelines after public consultation
Version 2.115 July 2024Editorial corrections

Executive summary

Article 65(1)(a) GDPR is a dispute resolution mechanism meant to ensure the correct and consistent application of the GDPR in cases involving cross-border processing of personal data. It aims to resolve conflicting views among the LSA(s) and CSA(s) on the merits of the case, in particular whether there is an infringement of the GDPR or not, in order to ensure the correct and consistent application of the GDPR in individual cases. These Guidelines clarify the application of the dispute resolution procedure under Article 65(1)(a) GDPR.

Article 65(1)(a) GDPR requires the EDPB issues a binding decision whenever a Lead Supervisory Authority (LSA) issues a draft decision and receives objections from Concerned Supervisory Authorities (CSAs) that either it does not follow or it deems to be not relevant and reasoned.

These Guidelines clarify the applicable legal framework and main stages of the procedure, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the GDPR and EDPB Rules of Procedure. The Guidelines also clarify the competence of the EDPB when adopting a legally binding decision on the basis of Article 65(1)(a) GDPR. In accordance with Article 65(1)(a) GDPR, the EDPB binding decision shall concern all the matters which are the subject of the relevant and reasoned objection. Consequently, the EDPB will first assess whether the objection(s) raised meet the “relevant and reasoned” standard set in Article 4(24) GDPR. Only for the objections meeting this threshold, the EDPB will take a position on the merits of the substantial issues raised. The Guidelines analyse examples of objections signalling disagreements between the LSA and CSA(s) on specific matters and clarify the EDPB’s competence in each case.

The Guidelines also clarify the applicable procedural safeguards and remedies, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the GDPR and EDPB Rules of Procedure. In particular, these Guidelines address the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the duty for the EDPB to provide reasoning for its decisions, as well as a description of the available judicial remedies.

These Guidelines do not concern dispute resolution by the EDPB in cases where: (1) there are conflicting views on which of the supervisory authorities concerned is competent for the main establishment (Article 65(1)(b) GDPR); or (2) a competent supervisory authority does not request the opinion of the Board in the cases referred to in Article 64(1), or does not follow the opinion of the Board issued under Article 64 (Article 65(1)(c) GDPR).

Go to the full Guidelines.

In this episode, Claude-Etienne Armingaud, Eleonora Curreri, and Camille Scarparo celebrate the fifth anniversary of GDPR accompanied with lawyers from our European offices; Thomas Nietsch and Andreas Müller (Berlin), Nóirín McFadden (London), and Gianmarco Marani (Milan). They reflect on how embedded GDPR has become in the cultural scene and with private enforcement. They also touch on the future for UK GDPR and the Data Protection and Digital Information (No.2) Bill.

May the enforcement be with you!

First publication: K&L Gates Hub with Eleonora Curreri, Gianmarco Marani, Andreas Müller, Noirin M. McFadden, Dr. Thomas Nietsch, Camille Scarparo

K&L Gates LLP has carved out a niche for work involving medical technology and IT in the healthcare sector. The firm assists with joint ventures and acquisitions in this space, as well as providing advice on GDPR and further data compliance matters.

Source: Legal 500

The team at K&L Gates LLP has strong capabilities advising clients active in the areas of luxury goods, the metaverse and energy, on innovative technologies such as VR and augmented reality, in matters which are often cross-border in nature. It is also well-equipped to advise on e-commerce launches, GDPR due diligence reviews, and acquisition matters. The team, led by Claude-Etienne Armingaud, often works in collaboration with other global offices.

Practice head(s): Claude-Etienne Armingaud

(more…)

Backed by a global network spanning five continents, the data protection, privacy and security group at K&L Gates LLP assists financial institutions and multinationals in mining, biotech (Anika Therapeutics), energy (Envision), home appliances (SharkNinja), pharmaceuticals (Ipsen), manufacturing (K&N Engineering), luxury goods and tech, on wide array of matters across the practice area. Headed by Claude-Etienne Armingaud, an expert in multi-jurisdictional transactional matters, dealing with IT outsourcing and data protection, the group also assists clients with GDPR compliance, data sharing agreements and data protection elements of M&A transactions.

Leading individuals: Claude-Etienne Armingaud – K&L Gates LLP

Practice head(s): Claude-Etienne Armingaud

(more…)

In this episode, Claude Etienne Armingaud, Eleonora Curreri, and Camille Scarparo introduce a case regarding a U.S. company’s data privacy breach, the consequences a company may face for being non-compliant with GDPR for companies established outside of the EU, and which steps companies can take to prevent these situations.

First publication: K&L Gates Hub with Eleonora Curreri & Camille Scarparo

Version 2.0 – Adopted 28 March 2023

Version history

Version 1.010 October 2022Adoption of the Guidelines (updated version of the previous guidelines WP250 (rev.01) adopted by the Working Party 29 and endorsed by the EDPB on 25 May 2018) for a targeted public consultation
Version 2.028 March 2023Adoption of the Guidelines following the targeted public consultation on the subject of data breach notification for controllers not established in the EEA.

INTRODUCTION

  1. The GDPR introduced the requirement for a personal data breach (henceforth “breach”) to be notified to the competent national supervisory authority (or in the case of a cross-border breach, to the lead authority) and, in certain cases, to communicate the breach to the individuals whose personal data have been affected by the breach.
  2. Obligations to notify in cases of breaches existed for certain organisations, such as providers of publicly-available electronic communications services (as specified in Directive 2009/136/EC and Regulation (EU) No 611/2013). There were also some Member States that already had their own national breach notification obligation. This might included the obligation to notify breaches involving categories of controllers in addition to providers of publicly available electronic communication services (for example in Germany and Italy), or an obligation to report all breaches involving personal data (such as in the Netherlands). Other Member States might had relevant Codes of Practice (for example, in Ireland). Whilst a number of EU data protection authorities encouraged controllers to report breaches, the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, which the GDPR replaced, did not contain a specific breach notification obligation and therefore such a requirement was new for many organisations. The GDPR makes notification mandatory for all controllers unless a breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Processors also have an important role toplay and they must notify any breach to their controller.
  3. The EDPB considers that the notification requirement has a number of benefits. When notifying the supervisory authority, controllers can obtain advice on whether the affected individuals need to be informed. Indeed, the supervisory authority may order the controller to inform those individuals about the breach. Communicating a breach to individuals allows the controller to provide information on the risks presented as a result of the breach and the steps those individuals can take to protect themselves from its potential consequences. The focus of any breach response plan should be on protecting individuals and their personal data. Consequently, breach notification should be seen as a tool enhancing compliance in relation to the protection of personal data. At the same time, it should be noted that failure to report a breach to either an individual or a supervisory authority may mean that under Article 83 GDPR a possible sanction is applicable to the controller.
  4. Controllers and processors are therefore encouraged to plan in advance and put in place processes to be able to detect and promptly contain a breach, to assess the risk to individuals, and then to determine whether it is necessary to notify the competent supervisory authority, and to communicate the breach to the individuals concerned when necessary. Notification to the supervisory authority should form a part of that incident response plan.
  5. The GDPR contains provisions on when a breach needs to be notified, and to whom, as well as what information should be provided as part of the notification. Information required for the notification can be provided in phases, but in any event controllers should act on any breach in a timely manner.
  6. In its Opinion 03/2014 on personal data breach notification12, WP29 provided guidance to controllers in order to help them to decide whether to notify data subjects in case of a breach. The opinion considered the obligation of providers of electronic communications regarding Directive 2002/58/EC and provided examples from multiple sectors, in the context of the then draft GDPR, and presented good practices for all controllers.
  7. The current Guidelines explain the mandatory breach notification and communication requirements of the GDPR and some of the steps controllers and processors can take to meet these obligations. They also give examples of various types of breaches and who would need to be notified in different scenarios

Go to the full Guidelines.

Well, that’s a wrap on #DPI23 France!

Claude-Étienne Armingaud, CIPP/E, Partner, Data Protection Privacy and Security Practice Group Coordinator, K&L Gates

Gabriela MercuriManaging Director, SCOPE Europe

Jörn WittmannDirector Privacy Legislative Strategy and Public Policy, Volkswagen AG

Codes of conduct overseen by accredited monitoring bodies are one of the breakthrough innovations introduced by EU General Data Protection Regulation. As part of its accountability framework, GDPR not only shifted the onus of demonstrative compliance, but also created the possibility for stakeholders to engage in co-regulatory practices. The goal was to allow the industry to support regulatory implementation by developing workable guidance to concretize the GDPR’s provisions. More flexible than other previously adopted compliance tools, CoCs generated high expectations, particularly in the wake of Schrems II, as a possible solution to address international data transfers and enable legal foreseeability. CoCs have not yet reached their full potential, with only a handful of national CoCs deployed and even less at the pan-European level. However, as the cloud ecosystem leads the way, this panel will explore the background of this sectoral success while highlighting CoC’s benefits, as well as their limitations.

What you will learn:

• How to understand the relevancy of CoCs in a post-GDPR, post-Schrems II era.

• What CoCs can bring to an ecosystem, as well as what they should not be pursued for.

• The future of international data transfers amid emerging data protection systems at global levels.

More information.