Over the past decade, influence marketing has changed the way advertising is handled by companies. Influencers have entered the marketing world by leveraging massive followings on social media platforms, and brands have recognized the value of the new category of advertising professionals.

Even though the use of influencers has become a mainstay of advertising, French legislation has yet to meet this evolution, resulting in an often opaque legal framework.

The broad spread-out provisions applicable to influencers also generate difficulties in understanding influencers legal status, in particular when they are underage. This notably raises the question whether influencers are employees of the brands they advertise for—and therefore subject to labor law—or if they should be considered independent contractors, with their relationship with brands subject to commercial legislation.

Such opaque legal framework raises questions about the applicable regime, as well as the legal status of influencers. Even though there is no specific regime for influencers, recent legislation was adopted in order to protect children influencers (see our alert here).

(more…)

The UK government has unveiled its much-trailed plans to reform its data protection laws, outlined in a consultation document which is open for public comment until 19 November 2021.

Since Brexit was finalised at the start of 2021, the United Kingdom has retained much of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. The government’s plans, if implemented, would see the UK move away from the EU’s approach in several key ways, which may lead to trouble for the continuation of the adequacy decision granted by the EU in June. If terminated, the adequacy decision, currently permitting free flows of personal data between the EU and the UK, could cause increased costs and bureaucracy for businesses on both sides of the Channel to continue their data transfers. 

Some of the changes to the UK GDPR proposed in the consultation document are:

  • Making the legitimate interests lawful basis easier to use, by publishing a limited, exhaustive list of legitimate interests that organisations can use without having to complete a balancing test.
  • Removal of the right to human review of decisions made on the basis of solely automated data processing.
  • Introducing a fee for responding to subject access requests and allowing organisations to refuse to comply with requests at a lower threshold than “manifestly unfounded”, as allowed in the current legislation.

The proposals also introduce potential changes to the UK’s Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations, including:

  • Increasing the current maximum penalty of £500,000 for breaches of the direct marketing regulations to the higher of 4% of global turnover or £17.5 million, thereby matching the maximum penalty under UK GDPR.
  • Removing the requirement for websites to obtain consent before serving some analytics cookies.
  • Extending the “soft opt in” for direct marketing to organisations other than businesses, such as charities and political parties.

First publication: Cyber Law Watch with Noirin McFadden

BACKGROUND

On 30 March 2021, the European Commission, in a joint statement with the Personal Information Protection Commission, the data protection authority of the Republic of Korea (Korea), declared that Korea ensured a level of protection for personal data that is similar to the level provided in the European Union (the EU) and, as such, is a jurisdiction deemed “adequate.” Further to this joint declaration, the European Commission completed its internal procedures and formally adopted the substance of this joint statement in a draft adequacy decision published on 14 June 2021. Once finalized, businesses will be allowed to transfer personal data freely from the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) to Korea without being required to provide further safeguards as required for “third country transfers” under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). Once so adopted, the adequacy decision would cover transfers of personal data to commercial operators located in Korea, as well as Korean public authorities. However, the transfer of personal credit information that is subject to jurisdiction of Korea’s Financial Services Commission will be excluded from the coverage of the adequacy decision.  

The adequacy decision only relates to the transfer of personal data from the EU/EEA to a recipient in Korea, but it does not cover the general applicability of GDPR. In this context, any company (even outside the EU/EEA) that directly collects personal data from EU residents in connection with offering goods or services or monitoring of behavior of EU residents will still need to comply with the obligations set out in the GDPR for its collection of personal data. Also, significantly, the adequacy decision only covers data flow in one direction, from the EU to Korea, but not in the opposite direction, i.e., from Korea to the EEA. As noted below, barring any further statutory amendments, Korean privacy laws still require data handlers to obtain the consent of data subjects (as opposed to an opt-out) prior to transferring their personal data outside of Korea.

The conclusion of adequacy talks between Korea and the European Commission is a major step in their ongoing four-year dialogue regarding mutual recognition of personal data protection regimes. Korea has been preparing for this adequacy decision since 2015, when the Korean government established a joint public-private sector task force, which was charged with conducting data regulation-related feasibility studies, self-assessments, and comparative analyses in preparation for the first round of adequacy negotiations with the EU in 2017. After two extensive rounds of adequacy negotiations between the representatives of the European Commission and Korea ended without an adequacy finding, Korea decided to make significant amendments to its data protection laws. Such amendments were enacted by the National Assembly, Korea’s national legislature, in January 2020 and became effective in August 2020, thus paving the way for the March 2021 joint statement.

(more…)

Depending on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, it will have taken the European Commission either three years and two weeks (since the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or eleven months (since the Schrems II decision — see our Alert here) to publish its finalized revision of the most flexible tool to allow for the transfer of personal data to partners located in countries not otherwise providing an adequate level of data protection (Adequate Countries): the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

While Schrems II made headlines with its cancellation of the Privacy Shield framework, this mechanism only affected 5,000 companies in the United States. SCCs, on the other hand, remain the most widely used instrument to ensure an end-to-end sufficient level protection of personal data covered by European data protection. With their original version dating back 2001, an update was severely needed to align them with GDPR’s extensive reach and requirements.

IN A NUTSHELL:

  • The new SCCs were published on 4 June 2021:
    • Starting on 27 June 2021, companies will need to transition to the new SCCs;
    • On 27 December 2022, companies must have finalized their transition to the new SCCs.
  • Affected companies include:
    • EU-based entities sharing data with partners and providers located in countries deemed not to offer an adequate level of protection;
    • Non EU-based entities otherwise subject to GDPR’s extensive territorial reach (see our Alert here) sharing data with partners and providers located in countries deemed not to offer an adequate level of protection; and
    • Non-EU based entities receiving or processing personal data from or on behalf of EU-based partners or non-EU partners otherwise subject to GDPR.
  • Key new elements include:
    • Data exporting entities will need to assess the importing countries’ regulatory framework;
    • Where such framework cannot safeguard the transferred data subject to GDPR, additional measures must be implemented contractually, organizationally and/or technically;
    • Each and every step of the assessment, and the relevancy of the remediation measures, must be thoroughly documented; and
    • In the case of a controller/processor/sub-processor relationship, the new SCCs consolidate the requirements into a single agreement addressing the data processing requirements under Article 28 GDPR and the data transfer agreement.
  • While the new SCCs provide for a general framework, many issues are left to:
(more…)

Since the Schrems II decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last year (see our alert here), companies in the European Union found themselves between a rock and a hard place, as many still rely on U.S.-based online service providers in one capacity or another, and the CJEU, in addition to totally invalidating the Privacy Shield framework, mandated additional requirements over the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), the most widely used lawful transfer mechanisms.

Following this CJEU decision, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht) has now effectively barred a European online magazine from using the popular U.S.-based newsletter delivery service, Mailchimp.

Companies using Mailchimp to route their newsletters must generally transfer personal data (e.g., the recipients’ email addresses) to Mailchimp’s servers in the United States. Previously certified under the late EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, Mailchimp had to pivot to offer its European customers an alternative transfer mechanism, i.e. the SCCs. While their general validity was left untouched by the Schrems II decision, the CJEU argued that it may be required for companies relying on the SCCs to assess whether additional safeguards should be implemented on top of the SCCs in order to effectively protect personal data.

As expressly mentioned in the Schrems II decision, transfers to cloud service providers in the United States would require such additional safeguards, due to the broad investigative powers of U.S. authorities, e.g., under Section 702 (50 U.S.C. § 1881a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Cloud Services Act).

Until now, it had seemed that the EU supervisory authorities had granted companies an unofficial grace period to adjust to the amended legal situation, especially as new templates for SCCs taking into consideration the Schrems II decision are expected to be finalized in the coming weeks.

The action of the Bavarian Data Protection Authority shows that this restraint might have come to an end. In a recent press release concerning this investigation, the authority commented that the case was exemplary for their enforcement of the requirements of the Schrems II decision, which had already been taken up with a high degree of intensity even without publicly perceived investigations or sanctions. 

The Bavarian Data Protection Authority based its action expressly on the fact that the European company has not assessed whether additional safeguards for transferring personal data to Mailchimp were required, in particular as Mailchimp may be subject to the Cloud Services Act. While no fine was imposed in this case and the Bavarian Data Protection Authority did not issue a formal decision, the authority still informed the company that their use of Mailchimp was (in their view) not in line with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. The company also promised to cease using Mailchimp in the future.

However, it should be noted that the official reason for not imposing a fine was on the one hand, the low sensitivity of the data transferred (email addresses only) and, on the other hand, the limited scope of the transmission (only two newsletters were sent). The details of the case being leaked and officially commented on by the supervisory authority could be considered as a warning to other EU companies transferring data to U.S. cloud service providers, which should probably expect less leniency from the supervisory authorities from now on. 

The current case was rather clear, as the European company in question has apparently taken no steps at all to establish and document whether additional safeguards were required and were already (because of this omission) in breach of their statutory obligations under GDPR. Future cases will probably not be as easy to decide, in particular when an EU company has documented a respective assessment or even implemented additional safeguards, and supervisory authorities and ultimately courts will have to assess what is really required to ensure adequate security of personal data in countries outside the European Union. 

Following the decision of the Bavarian Data Protection Authority, EU companies using U.S. online service providers, especially cloud services, are therefore encouraged to check the basis of their data transfers to the United States and, if necessary, adapt them to the new legal situation in order to avoid facing potentially high fines. 

K&L Gates’ global data protection team (including in each of our European offices) remains available to assist you in achieving the compliance of your data transfers at global levels.

First Publication: K&L Gates with Thomas Nietsch & Martin Fokken

When the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR” – external source) came into force throughout the European Union nearly three years ago, one of its most eye-catching features was its extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. These extend the reach of the GDPR to businesses located outside the European Union who offer goods or services to EU residents or who monitor the behavior of EU residents (See Art. 3(2)(a) and (b) GDPR).

Under the threat of becoming liable for a breach of the GDPR and potential fines of up to €20m or four percent of global turnover (whichever the higher), many businesses based in the United States and other locations outside the European Union have simply taken a stance of refusing to deal with EU residents, including taking measures such as geo-blocking websites to EU-based visitors. Other businesses, in the United States and elsewhere, have found themselves contemplating whether they might be subject to the GDPR and how to react merely because they have made a new EU-based business connection, acquired the contact details of a potential customer in the European Union, or even become aware that an employee at a customer organization had moved to the European Union.

A court in the United Kingdom has now considered the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the GDPR, which may provide some reassurance to overseas businesses that limited contact with EU residents via a website may not necessarily lead to them being subject to the GDPR.

(more…)

43rd EDPB Meeting

December 17th, 2020 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Europe | Privacy - (0 Comments)
  1. Adoption of the minutes and of the agenda, Information given by the Chair
    1. Minutes of the 42nd EDPB meeting
    2. Draft agenda of the 43rd EDPB meeting
  2. Consistency mechanism, Guidelines and EDPB
    1. Key Provision ESG
      1. Guidelines on restrictions under Article 23 GDPR
    2. Financial Matters ESG
      1. Guidelines 06/2020 on the interplay of the Second Payment Services Directive and the GDPR (after public consultation)
    3. International Transfer ESG
      1. Guidelines 2/2020 on articles 46 (2) (a) and 46 (3) (b) of Regulation 2016/679 for transfers of personal data between EEA and non-EEA public authorities and bodies (after public consultation)
  3. Current Focus of the EDPB Members
    1. Data Governance Act COM (2020) 767 proposal – presentation by European Commission
    2. Information about the European Commission request for a joint EDPS-EDPB opinion regarding the Data Governance Act
    3. EDPB Strategy
    4. Support Pool of Experts
    5. Request for information from the European Commission regarding Brexit state of play (end of transitional period as well as the impact on EU-UK data flows and further information on possible adequacy decisions)
    6. Information note on data transfers under the GDPR to the United Kingdom after the Brexit transition period
  4. FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ADOPTION – Expert Subgroups and Secretariat
    1. Cooperation ESG
      1. [BREXIT] Involvement of the UK SA in cooperation and consistency mechanisms
      2. Review of the internal documents on local cases
      3. Handling cross border complaints against public bodies or authorities – request for mandate
      4. Guidelines on handling complaints: revision of the mandate – request for mandate
    2. Compliance, e-Government and Health ESG
      1. Guidelines on certification criteria assessment – request for mandate
    3. Financial Matters ESG
      1. Statement on the protection of personal data processed in relation with the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing
    4. International Transfers ESG
      1. Art. 64 GDPR Opinion on the draft decision of the Dutch Supervisory Authority regarding the Controller Binding Corporate Rules of Equinix
    5. Compliance, e-Government and Health ESG
      1. Stakeholder event on processing of data for medical and scientific research purposes – request for mandate
    6. Technology ESG
      1. Guidelines on anonymisation / pseudonymisation – request for mandate
    7. EDPB Secretariat
      1. 2021 February plenary
      2. Survey future meetings post COVID
  5. Any other business

42nd EDPB Meeting

November 19th, 2020 | Posted by Claude-Etienne Armingaud in Europe | Privacy - (0 Comments)
  1. Adoption of the minutes and of the agenda, Information given by the Chair
    1. Minutes of the 41st EDPB meeting
    2. Draft agenda of the 42nd EDPB meeting
    3. Publication of minutes of 40th Plenary meeting
    4. Request to extend the deadline for public consultation re recommendation 01/2020 on sup. measures
  2. Current Focus of the EDPB Members
    1. Presentation by the European Commission of the new (updated) two sets of SCCs
  3. FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ADOPTION – Expert Subgroups and Secretariat
    1. Technology ESG
      1. Statement on eprivacy regulation
      2. Letter to News Media Europe and others regarding cookie walls
    2. International Transfer ESG
      1. Template for BCR approval decision by a supervisory authority
  4. Any other business
  1. Adoption of the minutes and of the agenda, Information given by the Chair
    1. Minutes of the 40th EDPB meeting
    2. Draft agenda of the 41st EDPB meeting
  2. Current Focus of the EDPB Members
    1. Art. 65 ongoing procedure
    2. Draft Art. 65 Decision
  3. FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ADOPTION – Expert Subgroups and Secretariat
    1. Recommendation on measures that supplement transfer instruments to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data
    2. Update of the European Essential Guarantees recommendations

With the Brexit transition period ending on 31 December 2020, and no deal in sight, the future of cross-border data transfers between the European Economic Area (the EEA) and the United Kingdom remains unclear. On 1 January 2021, the United Kingdom will be considered as a “third country” and, unless a Brexit deal is proposed dealing with data protection and how data transfers between the EEA and the United Kingdom are to be treated, it could be significantly more difficult for European Union (EU)-based entities to transfer personal data to the United Kingdom.

(more…)