Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On August 9, 2021, the UK First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (“FTT”) reduced a fine imposed by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) against Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd (“DDL”) from £275,000 to £92,000, a reduction of approximately two thirds. DDL, which supplies medicines to customers and care homes, was fined in December 2019 for failure to comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The ICO also issued an Enforcement Notice, requiring DDL to take certain actions to bring its processing into compliance.

Laura Liguori of Portolano Cavallo reports that on June 10, 2021, the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante or “DPA”) adopted a new version of its guidelines for cookies and other tracking mechanisms (the “Guidelines”).

On August 2, 2021, the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, “Garante”) announced that it had levied a €2,500,000 fine on Deliveroo Italy s.r.l. for the unlawful processing of personal data of approximately 8,000 Deliveroo riders, and various infringements of the EU Genera Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

On July 16, 2021, the Luxembourg data protection authority (Commission nationale pour la protection des donées, “CNPD”) imposed a record-breaking €746 million fine on Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l. for alleged violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The CNPD also ordered Amazon to revise certain of its practices. As Amazon has its EU headquarters in Luxembourg, the CNPD acts as Amazon’s lead supervisory authority in the EU.

On July 27, 2021, the Spanish Data Protection Authority (the “AEPD”) imposed a €2,520,000 fine on Spanish supermarket chain Mercadona, S.A. for unlawful use of a facial recognition system.

On June 29, 2021, the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) published guidance for businesses on child online safety, which includes guidance on data protection and privacy, age-appropriate content, positive user interactions, and protecting children from online sexual exploitation and abuse.

On July 22, 2021, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (“Dutch DPA”) announced that it had imposed a €750,000 fine on TikTok for violating the privacy of young children namely for the company’s alleged lack of transparency.

In an article originally published on Practical Law, and reproduced with the permission of the publishers, Hunton Andrews Kurth London partner Bridget Treacy discusses the European Commission’s long-awaited, and now finalized, standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for international transfers of personal data made under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On July 6, 2021, it was reported that British Airways (“BA”), which is owned by International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A, had settled a UK class action lawsuit relating to its 2018 data breach, in which approximately 430,000 data subjects were affected. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) previously fined BA £20 million for the same breach, after finding that BA had failed to process the personal data of its customers in a manner that ensured appropriate security, as required under Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. This amount was significantly reduced from the ICO’s proposed fine of more than £183 million.

On June 30, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its comments on the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s (“DPC”) consultation on its Draft Regulatory Strategy for 2021-2026, in which the DPC sets out its vision for the next five years.

On June 28, 2021, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted two adequacy decisions for the United Kingdom, one under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and another under the Law Enforcement Directive. Their adoption means organizations in the EU can continue to transfer personal data to organizations in the UK without restriction, and will not need to rely upon data transfer mechanisms, such as the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, to ensure an adequate level of protection. The adoption comes just before the conditional interim regime under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, under which data could flow freely from the EU to the UK, was set to expire on June 30, 2021.

On June 21, 2021, following a public consultation, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published the final version of its recommendations on supplementary measures in the context of international transfer safeguards, such as Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) (the “Recommendations”).

On June 16, 2021, the UK Government’s Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform published an independent report containing recommendations to the Prime Minister on how the UK can reshape its approach to regulation in the wake of Brexit (the “Report”). Among wide-ranging proposals across a range of areas, the Report recommends replacing the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR”) with a new UK Framework of Citizen Data Rights. The proposed approach would aim to give individuals greater control over their personal data while also allowing increased data flows and driving growth in the digital economy. The Report will be considered by the Government’s Better Regulation Committee.

On June 15, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) released its judgment in case C-645/19 of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”). We previously reported on the background of the case and the Advocate General’s opinion.

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.

On May 27, 2021, the European Data Protection Supervisor (the “EDPS”) announced that it has opened two investigations regarding (1) the use of cloud services provided by Amazon Web Services and Microsoft under Cloud II contracts by European Union institutions, bodies and agencies; and (2) the use of Microsoft Office 365 by the European Commission.

On May 26, 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of R (Open Rights Group and the3million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 800, finding that the UK 2018 Data Protection Act’s (“DPA 2018”) “immigration exemption” is unlawful.

On May 20, 2021, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”), as the lead authority (in collaboration with two co-reviewing authorities), announced that it had approved the EU Data Protection Code of Conduct for Cloud Service Providers (the “EU Cloud CoC”). The EU Cloud CoC is the first transnational EU code of conduct since the entry into force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

On May 12, 2021, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) imposed a €525,000 fine on Locatefamily.com for failure to comply with the obligation imposed under Article 27 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) to appoint a representative in the EU.

On May 10, 2021, the Ecuadorian National Assembly unanimously approved the Organic Law on Data Protection (the “Data Protection Law”), which President Moreno is expected to sign.

On May 14, 2021, the Irish High Court dismissed Facebook Ireland’s (“Facebook”) challenge to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s (“DPC”) investigation into Facebook’s international transfers of personal data.

On May 11, 2021, the European Parliament issued a press release requesting that the European Commission amend its draft decisions on UK adequacy to more closely align with EU court rulings and the opinion of the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”). The request came after the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (the “Committee”) passed a resolution evaluating the Commission’s approach regarding the adequacy of the UK’s data protection regime. The Members of European Parliament (“MEPs”) stated that if the Commission’s implementing decisions are adopted without amendment, transfers of personal data to the UK should be suspended when there is the potential for indiscriminate access to personal data.

On May 2, 2021, the Norwegian data protection authority, Datatilsynet, notified Disqus Inc. (“Disqus”), a U.S. company owned by Zeta Global, of its intention to issue a fine of 25 million Norwegian Krone (approximately 2.5 million Euros). The preliminary fine was issued for failure to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation’s (“GDPR”) accountability, lawfulness and transparency requirements, primarily due to Disqus’ tracking of website visitors.

On April 23, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) consultation on draft guidelines on virtual voice assistants (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were adopted on March 12, 2021 for public consultation.

On April 14, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) announced that it had adopted its Opinion on the draft UK adequacy decision issued by the European Commission on February 19, 2021. The EDPB’s Opinion is non-binding but will be persuasive. The adequacy decision will be formally adopted if it is approved by the EU Member States acting through the European Council. If the adequacy decision is adopted, transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK may continue following the end of the post-Brexit transition period without the implementation of a data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), such as Standard Contractual Clauses.

On April 9, 2021, the First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber stayed proceedings in Ticketmaster UK Limited’s (“Ticketmaster’s”) appeal against a fine issued by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) until 28 days after a judgment in civil litigation brought by 795 customers against Ticketmaster. The group action, which relates to the breach for which Ticketmaster was fined by the ICO, is currently before the High Court in England. As a result of the stay in proceedings, the appeal likely will not be heard before the Tribunal until mid to late 2023.

On March 31, 2021, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”), announced a fine of €475,000 for Dutch headquartered online travel agency Booking.com for failure to report a data breach within 72 hours of becoming aware of the incident in 2019.

On March 25, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth organized an expert roundtable on the EU Approach to Regulating AI–How Can Experimentation Help Bridge Innovation and Regulation? (the “Roundtable”). The Roundtable was hosted by Dragoș Tudorache, Member of Parliament and Chair of the Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Age (“AIDA”) Committee of the European Parliament.  The Roundtable gathered industry representatives and data protection authorities (“DPAs”) as well Axel Voss, Rapporteur of the AIDA Committee.

On March 26, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its comments on the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s (“DPC”) draft guidance on safeguarding the personal data of children when providing online services, “Children Front and Centre—Fundamentals for a Child-Oriented Approach to Data Processing” (the “Draft Guidance”).

On March 30, 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining Virginia’s new Consumer Data Protection Act.

On March 19, 2021, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (“DCMS”) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) with respect to new UK adequacy assessments following the UK’s departure from the European Union. The MoU sets out how DCMS and third countries will negotiate adequacy decisions, referred to under the MoU as “adequacy regulations”. These permit the free transfer of personal data collected in the UK to the relevant “adequate” jurisdiction.

On March 12, 2021, France’s highest administrative court (the “Conseil d’État”) issued a summary judgment that rejected a request for the suspension of the partnership between the French Ministry of Health and Doctolib, a leading provider of online medical consultations in Europe, for the management of COVID-19 vaccination appointments.

On March 12, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Guidelines 01/2021 on Virtual Voice Assistants for consultation (the “Guidelines”). Virtual voice assistants (“VVAs”) understand and execute voice commands or coordinate with other IT systems. These tools are available on most smartphones and other devices and collect significant amounts of personal data, such as through user commands. In addition, VVAs require a terminal device equipped with a microphone and transfer data to remote service. These activities raise compliance issues under both the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the e-Privacy Directive.

On March 2, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) consultation on draft guidelines on examples regarding data breach notification (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were adopted on January 14, 2021 for public consultation.

On March 2, 2021, Virginia’s Governor, Ralph Northam, signed the Consumer Data Protection Act into law without any further amendments. In addition to California, Virginia is now the second state to enact major privacy legislation of general applicability in the U.S.

The concept of regulatory sandboxes has gained traction in the data protection community. Since the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) completed its pilot program of regulatory sandboxes in September 2020, two European Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) have created their own sandbox initiatives following the ICO’s framework.

On February 23, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth hosted a webinar on China’s Data Privacy Landscape and Upcoming Legislation.

In the February 2021 issue of the Data Protection Leader, Hunton partner Dora Luo discusses China’s draft Personal Information Protection Law (“Draft PIPL”) (in Chinese) in the context of other comprehensive data protection frameworks, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On February 19, 2021, the European Commission published a draft data protection adequacy decision relating to the UK. If the draft decision is adopted, organizations in the EU will be able to continue to transfer personal data to organizations in the UK without restriction, and will not need to rely upon data transfer mechanisms, such as the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, to ensure an adequate level of protection.

As we previously reported, significant data privacy bills, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act, are working their way through the Virginia legislature. If enacted, Virginia would be the second state to enact major data privacy legislation of general applicability.

On February 10, 2021, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) published two opinions on the European Commission’s proposals for a Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and a Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). The proposed DSA and DMA are part of a set of measures announced in the 2020 European Strategy for Data and have two main goals: (1) creating a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected, and (2) establishing a level playing field to foster innovation, growth and competitiveness in the European Single Market and globally.

On February 5, 2021, the state Senate of Virginia voted unanimously to approve Senate Bill 1392, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act, after the House of Delegates approved an identical House bill by an 89-9 vote. Each bill likely will be heard in committee next week by the opposite chamber, which provides additional opportunities to make amendments. Minor, clarifying amendments will likely be added in committee, but they are not expected to alter the main components of the bill. Virginia’s General Assembly will adjourn Sine Die on March 1, and legislators have until then to finalize the details of the legislation. Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam would be in a position to sign the bill later in March. Notably, the Governor has line item veto authority, so the bill could also possibly be amended after it passes the General Assembly.

On February 5, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted a response to the European Commission’s (the “Commission’s”) public consultation on the Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (the “Data Governance Act,” or “DGA”). This proposal is the first set of initiatives announced under the broader European Data Strategy.

On January 27, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced (in French) that it imposed a fine of €150,000 on a data controller, and a fine of €75,000 on its data processor, for failure to implement adequate security measures to protect customers’ personal data against credential stuffing attacks on the website of the data controller. The CNIL decided not to make its decisions public, thereby not disclosing the name of the companies sanctioned.

The recent UK case of Soriano v Forensic News and Others tested the territorial reach of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and represents the first UK judgment dealing with the territorial scope of the GDPR. This was a “service out” case, where the claimant, Walter T. Soriano, sought the Court’s permission under the UK Civil Procedure Rules to serve proceedings on the defendants, who were all domiciled in the U.S.

On January 18, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) released draft Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Data Breach Notification (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines complement the initial Guidelines on personal data breach notification under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) adopted by the Article 29 Working Party in February 2018. The new draft Guidelines take into account supervisory authorities’ common experiences with data breaches since the GDPR became applicable in May 2018. The EDPB’s aim is to assist data controllers in deciding how to handle data breaches, including by identifying the factors that they must take into account when conducting risk assessments to determine whether a breach must be reported to relevant supervisory authorities and/or the affected data subjects.

On January 15, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) and European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) adopted joint opinions on the draft Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) released by the European Commission in November 2020, for both international transfers (“International SCCs”) and controller-processor relationships within the EEA (“EEA Controller-Processor SCCs”). 

On January 13, 2021, Advocate General (“AG”) Michal Bobek of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued his Opinion in the Case C-645/19 of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”).

On November 23, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) consultation on draft guidelines on relevant and reasoned objections under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) cooperation and consistency mechanisms (the “Guidelines). The consultation on the Guidelines took place a few weeks before the EDPB issued its first binding decision under the Article 65 GDPR dispute resolution mechanism.

On December 24, 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in principle on the historic EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the “Trade Agreement”). For data protection purposes, there is a further transition period of up to six months to enable the European Commission to complete its adequacy assessment of the UK’s data protection laws. For the time being, personal data can continue to be exported from the EU to the UK without implementing additional safeguards.

On December 21, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) released its 2021-2023 Strategy (the “Strategy”). The Strategy aims at setting out the four main pillars of the EDPB strategic objectives through 2023 and key actions to help achieve those objectives:

On December 15, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (“DPC”) announced its fine of €450,000 against Twitter International Company (“Twitter”), following its investigation into a breach resulting from a bug in Twitter’s design. The fine is the largest issued by the Irish DPC under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) to date and is also its first against a U.S.-based organization.

On December 10, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Commission’s invitation for comments on its draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) to be used for the transfer of personal data from a controller or processor subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (i.e., a data exporter) to a controller or (sub-)processor not subject to the GDPR (i.e., a data importer).

On December 10, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Commission’s invitation for comments on its draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) between controllers and processors for purposes of Article 28 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). Article 28 of the GDPR sets out specific provisions that must be executed between data controllers and processors when personal data is shared.

Hunton Andrews Kurth is pleased to announce the release of Sweet & Maxwell’s fifth edition of Data Protection Law and Practice, written by Rosemary Jay, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s senior consultant attorney. This edition has been re-written to provide a thorough review of the current state of data protection law in the UK, along with details of relevant background context.

On December 10, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it has levied fines of €60 million on Google LLC and €40 million on Google Ireland Limited under the French cookie rules for their alleged failure to (1) obtain the consent of users of the French version of Google's search engine (google.fr) before setting advertising cookies on their devices; (2) provide users with adequate information about the use of cookies; and (3) implement a fully effective opt-out mechanism to enable users to refuse cookies. On the same date, the CNIL announced that it has levied a fine of €35 million on Amazon Europe Core under the same rules for its alleged failure to (1) obtain the consent of users of the amazon.fr site before setting advertising cookies on their devices; and (2) provide adequate information about the use of cookies.

On December 2, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s (“DCMS”) UK National Data Strategy  (“NDS”) consultation.

On November 26, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”) signed a cooperation agreement with DNS Belgium, the organization managing the “.be” country code top-level domain name. The purpose of the cooperation agreement is to allow DNS Belgium to suspend “.be” websites that are linked to infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

On November 25, 2020, the European Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (the “Data Governance Act”). The Data Governance Act is part of a set of measures announced in the 2020 European Strategy for Data, which is aimed at putting the EU at the forefront of the data empowered society. The European Commission also released a Questions & Answers document and a Factsheet on European data governance.

On November 26, 2020, the Conference of the German Data Protection Authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, the “DSK”) issued a press release with conclusions from their 100th anniversary meeting.

On November 26, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it imposed a fine of €2.25 million on Carrefour France and a fine of €800,000 on Carrefour Banque for various violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act governing the use of cookies.

On November 23, 2020, the Dutch District Court of Midden-Nederland (the “Court”) determined that the concept of a legitimate interest for processing is broader than simply being an interest derived from law, overturning a fine by the Dutch data protection authority (the “Dutch DPA”).

On November 24, 2020, the European Parliament endorsed the new directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (the “Collective Redress Directive”). The Collective Redress Directive requires all EU Member States to put in place at least one effective procedural mechanism allowing qualified entities to bring representative actions to court for the purpose of injunction or redress. The Collective Redress Directive was presented in April 2018 by the European Commission and is part of the European Commission’s New Deal for Consumers. The Collective Redress Directive was proposed as a response to several scandals related to breaches of consumers’ rights by multinational companies.

On November 12, 2020, somewhat in the shadow of the new standard contractual clauses for data transfers to recipients outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”), the European Commission also adopted draft standard contractual clauses to be used between controllers and processors in the EEA (“EEA Controller-Processor SCCs”).

On November 13, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) fined Ticketmaster UK Limited (“Ticketmaster”) £1.25 million for failing to keep its customers’ personal data secure. The ICO found that Ticketmaster had failed to implement appropriate security measures to prevent a cyber attack, breaching the requirements of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The ICO acted as the lead supervisory authority with regard to the cross-border processing affected by this breach, and the penalty has been approved by the other EU data protection authorities through the GDPR’s cooperation process. Ticketmaster has indicated that it will appeal the fine.

On November 12, 2020, the European Commission published a draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to third countries pursuant to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), along with its draft set of new standard contractual clauses (the “SCCs”).

On November 11, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published its long-awaited recommendations following the Schrems II judgement regarding supplementary measures in the context of international transfer safeguards such as Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) (the “Recommendations”). In addition, the EDPB published recommendations on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures (the “EEG Recommendations”), which complement the Recommendations. The Recommendations are subject to a public consultation, which closes on December 21, 2020.

On November 10, 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining the data protection considerations that arise on the UK’s departure from the EU. The UK’s Brexit transition period ends on December 31, 2020, and it is not clear whether the EU will formally recognize the UK’s data protection regime as ‘adequate.’ What does this mean for companies’ plans to update their data transfer mechanisms? Is adequacy the holy grail it is widely believed to be? What other issues must be considered? Is there still time?

On October 27, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a report following its investigation into data protection compliance in the direct marketing data broking sector, alongside its enforcement action against Experian. During the investigation, the ICO conducted audits of the direct marketing data broking businesses of the UK’s three largest credit reference agencies (“CRAs”) – Experian, Equifax and TransUnion – and found “significant data protection failures at each” that were “deeply embedded” within the businesses.

On October 30, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced its fine of £18.4 (approximately $23.9 million) issued to Marriott International, Inc., (“Marriott”) for violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is a significant decrease from the proposed fine of £99,200,396 (approximately $124 million) announced by the ICO in July 2019. The ICO’s fine only relates to the breach from the point at which the GDPR came into force in May 2018, and is the second largest fine levied by the ICO thus far under the GDPR. Marriott has not admitted liability for the breach, but has indicated that it does not plan to appeal.

On October 27, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published its enforcement notice against credit reference agency Experian Limited (“Experian”) under Section 149 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) (the “notice”). The notice requires Experian to make fundamental changes to its offline direct marketing practices, and was issued after the ICO undertook a two-year investigation into the use of personal data by data broking businesses Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.

On October 21, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) released its updated guidance on the data subject right of access under Article 15 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The ICO provided a draft of the guidance for consultation in December 2019, and in response to the feedback it received, supplemented the guidance with additional content. The guidance provides more in-depth advice for organizations than what was provided in the ICO’s previous guide and includes examples designed to demonstrate how the GDPR’s requirements will apply in practice.

On October 13, 2020, France’s highest administrative court (the “Conseil d’État”) issued a summary judgment that rejected a request for the suspension of France’s centralized health data platform, Health Data Hub (the “HDH”), currently hosted by Microsoft. However, the Conseil d’État recognized that there is a risk of U.S. intelligence services requesting the data and called for additional guarantees under the control of the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”).

On October 16, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced its fine of £20,000,000 (approximately $25,850,000) for British Airways (“BA”), which is owned by International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A, for violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is a significant (approximately 90%) decrease from the proposed fine of £183,390,000 (approximately $230,000,000) announced by the ICO in July 2019, but is the largest fine imposed to date by the ICO.

During its 39th plenary session on October 8, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted guidelines on relevant and reasoned objection under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines relate to the cooperation and consistency provisions set out in Chapter VII of the GDPR, under which a lead supervisory authority (“LSA”) has a duty to cooperate with other concerned supervisory authorities (“CSAs”) in order to reach a consensus.

The increasing development and use of AI technology is raising several compliance questions, particularly in the context of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The European Commission has already begun working on future AI legislation. Join us on October 14, 2020, for a webinar on Artificial Intelligence: Key Considerations for GDPR Compliance Today and Tomorrow.

On September 30, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released its 2019 Annual Report (the “Report”). Notably, 2019 was the year of the Belgian DPA’s first fines under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) and the release of the Belgian DPA’s 2019-2025 Strategic Plan.

On October 1, 2020, the Hamburg Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) fined Hennes & Mauritz AB (“H&M”) € 35.3 million for unlawful employee monitoring practices in the company’s service center concerning several hundred employees. According to the DPA’s press release, H&M was maintaining excessive details about employees’ private lives since 2014. This includes notes taken by managers regarding (1) employees’ vacation experiences, illnesses, diagnoses and symptoms as discussed with managers during welcome-back talks after employees’ vacation or sick leave, and (2) information ranging from employees’ family problems to religious beliefs obtained by managers during floor talks. The information was stored digitally and could be read by up to 50 managers throughout the company. According to the DPA, the managers’ notes were sometimes made with a high level of detail and maintained over great periods of time. The press release states that the information was used to evaluate the performance of employees, create employee profiles and make other employment-related decisions.

On September 24, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth (“CIPL”) released a new paper (the “Paper”) on the Path Forward for International Data Transfers under the GDPR after the CJEU Schrems II Decision.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth (“CIPL”) recently published a concept paper titled Why We Need Interstate Privacy Rules for the U.S.

The paper acknowledges the possibility that the U.S. may not implement a comprehensive federal privacy law in the near future, and that instead a growing patchwork of state laws will emerge. It proposes an interstate privacy interoperability code of conduct or certification as a solution to the possibility of inconsistent and disparate privacy requirements across the U.S. The paper outlines the benefits and key features of the code, as well as potential models and sources for its structure and substantive rules, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“APEC CBPR”), ISO standards, existing state privacy laws, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and key federal privacy proposals. It also discusses the process that could be used to develop the code.

On September 9, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an Accountability Framework, designed to assist organizations in complying with their accountability obligations under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The GDPR’s accountability principle requires that organizations both comply with their legal requirements under the GDPR, and also demonstrate their compliance. The ICO states that its Accountability Framework “supports the foundations of an effective privacy management programme.”

On September 7, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) released draft Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines aim to (1) clarify the concepts of controller, joint controllers, processor, third party and recipient under the GDPR by providing concrete examples with respect to each; and (2) specify the consequences attached to the different roles of controller, joint controllers and processor. The Guidelines replace the previous opinion of the Article 29 Working Party on these concepts.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth (“CIPL”) and the Data Security Council of India (“DSCI”) have published a report on Enabling Accountable Data Transfers from India to the United States under India’s Proposed Personal Data Protection Bill (the “Report”).

On August 24, 2020, the Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) of the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg issued guidance on international data transfers following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case (decision C-311/18 of July 16, 2020). As we previously reported, the judgment of the CJEU invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and confirmed the ongoing validity of the controller-to-processor EU Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), subject to an adequacy assessment and, if necessary, additional safeguards to protect the personal data transferred pursuant to the SCCs. The guidance is notable because it is the first substantive guidance from a DPA following the Schrems II judgment (although the guidance is only applicable to companies established in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg).

On August 27, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) announced it approved the “Data Pro Code,” a code of conduct drafted by industry association NLdigital (the “Code”). This Code is the first code of conduct approved by the Dutch DPA under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). Adhering to the Code will help organizations active in the Information and Communications Technology sector comply with their obligations under the GDPR. The Code includes, among other things, a series of practical GDPR compliance tools, such as the “Data Pro Statement” that companies may use to inform potential customers of the data protection safeguards they have in place.

On August 11, 2020, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales overturned the High Court’s dismissal of a challenge to South Wales Police’s use of Automated Facial Recognition technology (“AFR”), finding that its use was unlawful and violated human rights.

On August 5, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it has levied a fine of €250,000 on French online shoe retailer, Spartoo, for various infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is the first penalty under the GDPR enforced by the CNIL as the lead supervisory authority (“Lead SA”) in cooperation with other EU supervisory authorities (“SAs”).

On July 30, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €20,000 fine on Belgian telecommunications provider Proximus N.V. (“Proximus”) for several data protection infringements related to Proximus’ public directory. In particular, the claimant requested that Proximus remove his contact details from the public directory and inform other publishers of public directories not to publish his personal data. Despite informing the claimant that it was going to proceed accordingly, Proximus still published his personal data in its public directory and shared it with other publishers of public directories.

On July 28, 2020, German supervisory authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, the “DSK”) issued a statement reiterating the requirement for additional safeguards when organizations rely on Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) or Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for the transfer of personal data to third countries in the wake of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU”) invalidation of the Privacy Shield Framework. In its July 16, 2020 judgment, the CJEU concluded that SCCs issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, subject to the need to assess whether additional safeguards are required depending on the recipient jurisdiction. In this same decision, the CJEU struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.

On July 23, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) published the first two reports of its Data Protection Regulatory Sandbox Beta phase (the “Beta phase”) involving projects by Jisc (a not-for-profit organization serving the higher and further education and skills sectors) and Heathrow Airport Ltd.

On July 22, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) adopted an information note (the “Note”) to assist organizations relying on Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for international personal data transfers, as well as supervisory authorities, in preparing for the end of the Brexit implementation period on December 31, 2020. The Note is provided specifically for those groups of undertakings and enterprises that have the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) as the competent supervisory authority for their BCRs.

On July 24, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published a set of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”) on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. With its FAQs, the EDPB sought to provide responses to some of the many questions organizations are asking in the aftermath of the Schrems II ruling.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as part of its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the Privacy Shield framework on the basis that the limitations on U.S. public authorities’ access to EU personal data were not sufficient for the level of protection in the U.S. to be considered equivalent to that ensured in the EU, and that the framework does not grant EU individuals actionable rights before a body offering guarantees that are substantially equivalent to those required under EU law.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 6, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) imposed a €830,000 fine on the Dutch Credit Registration Bureau (Stichting Bureau Krediet Registration, “BKR”) for non-compliance with Articles 12(2) and 12(5) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) between May 2018 and March 2019.

In one of the most important cases on global data transfers, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will rule on the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020. Invalidation of the SCCs would leave businesses scrambling to find an alternative data transfer mechanism. But there may be significant practical challenges for businesses even if the SCCs survive.

On July 14, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €600,000 fine on Google Belgium SA (“Google”) for non-compliance with the right to be forgotten.

On July 8, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its White Paper (the “Paper”) as input for the European Data Protection Board’s (the “EDPB”) future guidelines on data subject rights (“DSRs”) (the “Guidelines”). The Paper, titled “Data Subject Rights under the GDPR in a Global Data Driven and Connected World,” was drafted following the EDPB stakeholders’ event on DSR in Brussels on November 4, 2019.

In a case that has garnered widespread interest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will deliver its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020, determining the validity of the controller–to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a cross-border data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). If the SCCs are invalidated, the judgment would deliver a significant blow to the numerous businesses that rely on them, leaving many scrambling to find a suitable alternative transfer mechanism. Even if the SCCs survive, they may become more cumbersome to use.

On July 9, 2020, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled: “Getting ready for changes – Communication on readiness at the end of the transition period between the European Union and the United Kingdom” (the “Communication”).