On February 20, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) issued a template complaint form and Rules of Procedure that clarify the role of the EU Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) in resolving EU-U.S. Privacy Shield-related (“Privacy Shield”) complaints.
The Working Party’s template complaint form indicates that it is intended for use by EU individuals who wish to have their commercial-related complaints associated with Privacy Shield-certified organizations resolved by their national DPAs. Individuals are not required to use the form to submit a complaint to their DPA, but the form indicates that the information requested in the form is necessary to facilitate the handling of individuals’ complaints. The form asks for relevant information about the complaint, such as which companies may be involved in processing the individual’s personal data, the reasons why the data has been transferred, the alleged violation and what relief is being sought. Importantly, the form advises individuals that “in most cases, it would be advisable that you first contact the U.S. Privacy Shield-certified company to attempt to resolve your case.” Once the DPA receives the complaint, it is the DPA’s responsibility to determine whether a DPA panel would be the “competent body” to resolve the complaint. A DPA panel is the competent body only if the complaint is related to a Privacy Shield-certified organization that has committed to cooperate with the DPA panel or that processes human resources data collected in the context of an employment relationship. Otherwise, the complaint may be forwarded to another competent body, such as the U.S. Department of Commerce or the FTC.
The Rules of Procedure clarify the roles of the DPA panel and lead DPA in resolving individuals’ complaints. The Rules of Procedure indicate that upon a DPA receiving a relevant complaint or referral, a DPA panel will be formed (only if competent to resolve the complaint, as described above) in a “timely manner” and “in principle, be confirmed within two weeks’ time from the receipt of the initial complaint/referral.” Each DPA panel will consist of a lead DPA and at least two co-reviewer DPAs. The lead DPA typically will be the DPA that received the complaint. Additional co-reviewer DPAs may be added in “appropriate circumstances...if more than two DPAs are interested in participating in the panel and can put forward a specific interest.” Where fewer than two DPAs indicate an interest in acting as a co-reviewer, the lead DPA has the power to appoint two co-reviewers and should take into account such factors as (1) where the company’s EU headquarters or significant subsidiaries are located, (2) where in the EU the relevant data processing is facilitated, (3) the place in the EU from which most of the data transfers take place, (4) the place where a large number of EU individuals are likely to be affected by the alleged violation and (5) available resources.
The Rules of Procedure also specify additional roles of the lead DPA, such as (1) informing all Working Party members about which DPAs are participating in the panel, (2) informing the company of the substance of the complaint, (3) offering both sides in the dispute a reasonable opportunity to comment and provide any evidence they wish on the matter within a reasonable timeframe, (4) drafting a binding advice opinion that includes remedies, where appropriate, and (5) considering DPA co-reviewers’ advice and attempting to reach a consensus on the advice. If the lead DPA and co-reviewer DPAs cannot reach a consensus on the advice, the lead DPA may request that the Working Party Chair mediate a solution or, as a last resort, a simple majority vote may be used to determine the advice. According to the Rules of Procedure, the DPA panel will “seek to deliver advice as quickly as the requirement for due process allows [and] [a]s a general rule, the panel will aim to provide advice within 60 days after receiving a complaint...and more quickly where possible. However, advice will be issued only after both sides in a dispute have had a reasonable opportunity to comment and to provide any evidence they wish.”
Importantly, if the company fails to comply with the DPA panel’s advice within 25 days after receipt, the lead DPA is required to (1) give notice of the panel’s intention to refer the matter to the FTC or other U.S. Federal or state body with statutory powers to take enforcement action in cases of deception or misrepresentation, or (2) conclude that the company’s agreement to cooperate with the DPA panel has been seriously breached and must therefore be considered null and void, and inform the Department of Commerce so that the Privacy Shield list can be duly amended.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code