Four political groups have sent letters to the European Parliament President asking for further details, action, and “responsibilities” related to a recent data breach that affected a significant amount of employees’ personal data, including passports.

(more…)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(more…)

K&L Gates’s expertise in data and tech work has recently seen it advise on matters as diverse as AI and machine learning projects’ impact on personal data retention and transparency and the implications of augmented reality make-up applications and smart fragrances. While the firm has some significant tech companies on board, the client base skews more heavily towards advising more traditional industries through digital transformation.
The data protection, privacy and security practice has multiple leaders, reflecting its wide geographic spread.
Claude-Étienne Armingaud in Paris, who is a dual-qualified French and New York lawyer, is a stand-out name: besides GDPR and privacy compliance, he also has extensive experience advising on tech transactions, for example relating to software, blockchain, connected cars and more. Other partners leading the practice are Cameron Abbott in Melbourne; Shannan Frisbie, Whitney McCollum, David Bateman and Carley Andrews in the firm’s Seattle headquarters; Bruce Heiman in Washington, DC; Limo Cherian in Chicago; Gina Bertolini and Leah Richardson in the Research Triangle Park office in North Carolina; and Sarah Turpin in London.

The K&L Gates practice’s senior ranks grew with the addition of San Francisco partner Michael Stortz, who was formerly at Akin Gump. Thomas Nietsch was promoted to the partnership in Berlin. The firm also hired counsel Veronica Muratori in Milan from Withersworldwide; Avril Love in Los Angeles from Tucker Ellis; and Ulrike Elteste in Frankfurt from Covington & Burling.

Client references


“K&L Gates has deep expertise and knowledge in this area and is always responsive. Advice is always timely and well-considered.”


“Collaboration with K&L Gates is always seamless. The team have deep knowledge of privacy laws and regulations, but they also understand the business impact of their advice. This sets them apart from other firms in the market.”

First publication: Lexology GDR100

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has recently published guidance for employers on monitoring workers lawfully, transparently and fairly. The guidance aims to protect workers’ data protection rights and help employers to build trust with workers, customers and service users. With Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the rise, the temptation may be strong for employers to leverage those emerging technologies in that space. This alert summarizes some specific steps employers should prioritise in light of the ICO guidance.

(more…)

Part IV of our series “Regulating AI: The Potential Impact of Global Regulation of Artificial Intelligence” will focus on recent developments in general availability of AI and how generative AI solutions are leading regulators, at a global level, to consider legal frameworks to protect both individuals affected by AI and digital sovereignty.

The program will feature a panel addressing the EU AI Act, on which a preliminary political agreement was reached last December and unanimously approved by the ambassadors of the 27 countries of the European Union on 2 February 2024, prior to its upcoming final votes.

Like the GDPR before it, the EU AI Act will be a trailblazing piece of legislation which will impact companies at global level.

Our panelists will discuss the consequences of the EU AI Act on companies contemplating the provision of AI solutions in the EU market or leveraging AI in the EU, with a special focus on non-EU companies.

Additional topics in our Regulating AI — The Potential Impact of Global Regulation of Artificial Intelligence series include:  

  • Part I – 13 September 2023 (EU / U.K.) – View Recording
  • Part II – 7 December 2023 (Asia-Pacific Region: China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan) – View Recording
  • Part III – 12 December 2023 (United States)

Register or watch the replay here.

Access the full text of the EU AI Act here.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recently launched a consultation series on how data protection laws should apply to the development and use of generative AI models (“Gen AI”). In the coming months, the ICO will publish further views on how to interpret specific requirements of UK GDPR and Part 2 of the DPA 2018 in relation to Gen AI. This first part of the consultation focusses on whether it is lawful to train Gen AI on personal data scraped from the web. The consultation seeks feedback from stakeholders with an interest in Gen AI.

As outlined by the ICO, web scraping will involve the collection and processing of personal data, which may not have been placed online directly by the data subjects themselves. To comply with the UK GDPR, Gen AI developers would need to ensure there is a valid lawful basis for their processing under UK GDPR, as well as comply with the relevant information requirements pertaining to indirect personal data collection.

For the first part of the consultation series, the ICO published a policy position on the lawful basis for training Gen AI models on web-scraped data which can be found here. More specifically, this consultation focusses on the ‘legitimate interest’ lawful basis under art. 6(1)(f) UK GDPR and the ‘three-part’ test that a data controller must pass to meet the legitimate interest basis (a so-called Legitimate Interest Assessment). The ICO has considered various actions that Gen AI developers could take to meet this three-part legitimate interest test to guarantee that the collection of training data through web scraping, i.e. processing of data, is complaint with the principles of UK GDPR. The ICO would now like to hear from relevant stakeholders on their view of the proposed regulatory approach and the impact this would have on their organisation. A link to the survey can be found here.

The deadline to submit a response is 1 March 2024.

First publication: K&L Gates Cyber Law Watch blog with Sophie Verstraeten

Join our session as we explore the implications of the EU AI Act. In this webinar, we’ll:

Featured speakers

Yücel Hamzaoğlu​

Partner
HHK Legal

Melike Hamzaoğlu

Partner
HHK Legal

Claude-Étienne Armingaud​

Partner
KL Gates

Noshin Khan​

Ethics & Compliance, Associate Director
OneTrust​

Harry Chambers

Senior Privacy Analyst
OneTrust

Register here.

Quoted in Agenda article “New EU AI Rules Will Have Global Impact“:

The scope of the EU AI Act will apply to all companies whose AI systems are used or affect EU-based individuals, according to Claude-Etienne Armingaud, a partner in K&L Gates’ Paris office and a member of the law firm’s technology transactions and sourcing practice group.

Due to its breadth, global companies developing AI systems, most of which are headquartered either in the U.S. or in China, will face two options: “Get in line with the EU AI Act or abstain from the EU market,” Armingaud said.

Some companies threatened to exit the European market after the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, became effective in 2018, but many didn’t actually follow through, according to Armingaud.

“So, without a doubt, all companies dabbling in AI will need to comply if they truly want to remain global,” he said.

Agenda – New EU AI Rules Will Have Global Impact

It has been some time already since the EU Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065, DSA) was published, and since then, the discussions about Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) have dominated the media coverage (see initial press release of European Commission here and coverage about VLOPs/VLOSEs petitions against categorization as VLOPs/VLOSEs here and here). 

Smaller online service providers tend to forget that they may also face some new obligations under the DSA from 17 February 2024 onwards, but would be well advised to comply to avoid significant sanctions (e.g., fines of up to 6% of the global annual turnover or periodic penalty payments up to 5% of the global average daily turnover). 

The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of the most relevant content of the DSA and will help online service providers to understand:

  • If and to what extent the DSA applies to them;
  • What specific obligations exist; and
  • What sanctions may be applied in case of breach.
(more…)

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) has recently sent warnings to the UK’s most visited websites to inform them that they may face enforcement action if they do not make changes to their cookie banner to ensure compliance with UK data protection law. For example, some websites warned by the ICO do not provide their user with a fair choice on tracking for personalised advertising. This position aligns with the EU’s stance, noting France (see prior Alert here).

The ICO’s actions are part of a larger commitment to ensure individuals’ privacy rights are upheld by companies active in the online advertising industry. Publishers receiving a warning only have 30 days to amend their websites in line with UK GDPR. As further incentive for publishers to get compliant, the ICO has also warned that it will publish the details of those websites that have not made the requested changes in January. Such publicity may be even less welcome than the potentially large fines associated with breach of the data protection framework.

The statement made by the ICO highlights once again the importance for companies to review how cookies are used on their websites and how their cookie banners, along with the cookie consent management solution, are displayed. To be compliant, websites must make it as easy as possible for users to reject all advertising cookies. Personalized advertising can be compliant as long as it is based on the user’s consent. In case users reject all advertising cookies, websites can only show general adverts that are not tailored to the users’ browsing history. Consequently, websites should display a cookie banner that makes it as easy for users to reject cookies, as it is for them to accept cookies.

The ICO’s guidance in relation to cookie banners can be found here, which may need to be further updated with the newly presented Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.

First publication: Cyber Law Watch Blog with Sophie Verstraeten