On June 4, 2021, the European Commission published the final version of the implementing decision on standard contractual clauses for transfers of personal data to third countries under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as well as the final version of the new standard contractual clauses (the “SCCs”). The European Commission had previously published draft versions of the implementing decision and the SCCs in November 2020.
Key Takeaways
Key takeaways regarding the new SCCs include:
- The SCCs retain the modular approach adopted in the draft version. In particular, they include general provisions that apply to all data transfers that take place under the SCCs, and several modular provisions that must be selected based on the status of the parties under the GDPR. Specifically, the SCCs may be used for (1) controller-to-controller transfers; (2) controller-to-processor transfers; (3) processor-to-processor transfers; and (4) processor-to-controller transfers, and so more accurately reflect the complexity of modern data processing chains. The final version permits contracting parties to include only the language contained in the relevant modules that is applicable to the contracting parties.
- The general clauses address the: (1) obligation for the parties to ensure that the data protection laws in the receiving country (including any requirements to disclose personal data or measures authorizing access by public authorities) do not prevent the data importer from fulfilling its obligations under the SCCs; (2) obligations of the data importer with respect to government access requests (e.g., to notify the exporter of such requests, review the legality of a request and ensure only the minimum amount of information as permissible under law is provided when responding to a request); (3) redress mechanism available to data subjects; (4) liability between the parties in the event of a breach of the SCCs; (5) supervision of transfers by supervisory authorities; (6) obligations of the parties in the event the data importer is unable to comply with the SCCs; (7) termination of the SCCs; (8) parties’ ability to choose the law of one of the EU Member States to govern the SCCs, which must allow for third-party beneficiary rights; and (9) choice of forum and jurisdiction in the event of a dispute arising from the SCCs.
- Controllers and processors should select the module clauses applicable to their situation and tailor their obligations under the SCCs to their corresponding roles and responsibilities in relation to the data processing at issue. Depending on the designation of the parties as controller or processor, the modular clauses for transfers address: (1) data protection safeguards that must be implemented by the parties based on their role under the GDPR (e.g., instructions that must be provided for the transfer, transparency, purpose limitation, accuracy and data minimization, storage limitation, erasure and return of data, security, transfer of sensitive data and data relating to criminal convictions or offences, onward transfers and accountability obligations of the parties); (2) the appointment of sub-processors in the context of controller-to-processor and processor-to-processor transfers; (3) data subject rights and the parties’ obligations in the event of a data subject rights request; and (4) the parties’ liability under the SCCs.
- The SCCs include three annexes attached to the Appendix.
- Annex I to the SCCs must be completed by the parties and includes (1) a list of parties to the SCCs; (2) a description of the transfers (including the categories of data subjects whose personal data is transferred, categories of personal data transferred, purpose(s) of the transfer and further processing, maximum data retention periods, if applicable, and for transfers to (sub)-processors, the subject matter, nature and duration of the processing); and (3) the identity of the competent supervisory authority for each party to the SCCs. To the extent necessary to adequately describe the data transfers that will take place, the parties should complete a separate version of Annex I for each category of data transfer.
- Annex II to the SCCs should be completed by the data importer(s) to include a description of the technical and organizational measures implemented to ensure an appropriate level of security for the data transferred.
- Annex III to the SCCs should list the sub-processors used by the processor, if applicable.
- Data subjects must be provided, free of charge, with a copy of the SCCs upon request and informed if any change of processing purpose or of the identity of any third party to whom the personal data is disclosed. The parties are permitted to redact any portion of the Appendix prior to disclosure to the data subject to protect confidential information, but must provide the data subject with the reasons for such redactions upon request.
- With respect to onward transfers to additional recipients in third countries (including where the additional recipient is located in the same country as the importer), such transfers are prohibited unless the onward transfer recipient agrees to be bound by the SCCs or another exemption applies.
- Other exemptions that permit onward transfers include where: (1) the recipient is located in a country deemed to provide an adequate level of protection for personal data; (2) the recipient enters into a binding instrument with the importer that ensures the same level of protection as the SCCs; or (3) data subjects provide informed and explicit consent for an onward transfer to the particular recipient (when none of the other exemptions apply).
Next Steps
The SCCs will become effective 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The existing SCCs will be repealed three months after the new SCCs are published in the Official Journal, and organizations will not be able to rely on the existing SCCs for new data transfers after that date.
Contracts that already incorporate the existing SCCs (provided that the existing SCCs are unchanged) will continue to constitute a valid data transfer mechanism until 18 months after the new SCCs are published in the Official Journal.
Use in the UK
The SCCs will not automatically be able to be used in connection with data transfers from the UK. It is expected, however, that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office will adopt a similar set of clauses for data transfers from the UK in due course.
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