Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On January 8, 2024, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) opened a consultation on its draft guidance for the use of transfer impact assessments (“Guidance”). In describing the Guidance, the CNIL references the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Schrems II and states that exporters relying on tools listed in Article 46(2) and Article 46(3) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) for personal data transfers are required to assess the level of protection in the designated third country and the need to put in place additional safeguards (i.e., conduct a transfer impact assessment (“TIA”)). The Guidance is intended to assist data exporters in carrying out TIAs. 

On July 19, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued an Information Note regarding data transfers to the U.S. following the adoption of an adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Data Privacy Framework”) on July 10, 2023 (the “Information Note”).

On July 10, 2023, the European Commission formally adopted a new adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Adequacy Decision”). The adoption of this Adequacy Decision follows years of intense negotiations between the EU and the U.S., after the invalidation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case.

On May 22, 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) announced a €1.2 billion fine against Meta Ireland for unlawfully transferring personal data to the U.S.

On January 4, 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission (“DPC”) announced the conclusion of two inquiries into the data processing practices of Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) with respect to the company’s Instagram and Facebook platforms. As a result of the investigations, the DPC fined Meta a combined €390 million for breaches of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and, following consultation with the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”), notably held that Meta can no longer rely on the GDPR’s “performance of a contract” legal basis for processing personal data in the behavioral advertising context, a decision that has broad implications for publishers engaged in behavioral advertising in the EU.

On January 10, 2023, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth  responded to a call for public comments from the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) regarding their Recommendations 1/2022 on the Application for Approval and on the elements and principles to be found in Controller Binding Corporate Rules (Art. 47 GDPR) (“Recommendations 1/2022”). The Recommendations 1/2022 are intended to bring existing Controller Binding Corporate Rules (“BCR-C”) in line with the GDPR and the Schrems II ruling.

On December 13, 2022, the European Commission launched the process for the adoption of an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If adopted, the long-awaited adequacy decision will provide EU companies transferring personal data to the U.S. with an additional mechanism to legitimize their transfers.

An adequacy decision would foster trans-Atlantic data flows and address the concerns raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) judgment in the Schrems II case.

On December 12, 2022, at the “POLITICO Live” event presented in cooperation with Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s Centre for Information Policy Leadership ("CIPL")—titled “EU-U.S. Data Flows: Game Changer or More Legal Uncertainty?”—featured speakers from both sides of the Atlantic optimistic that the new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework will withstand an anticipated legal challenge.

On November 17, 2022, the UK data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), published updated guidance on international transfers that includes a new section on transfer risk assessments (“TRAs”) and a TRA tool.

In its statement regarding the updated guidance, the ICO describes the TRA guidance as “an alternative approach to the one put forward by the European Data Protection Board” and says its aim is “to find an alternative, achievable approach delivering the right protection for the people the data is about, whilst ensuring that the assessment is reasonable and proportionate.”

On September 21, 2022, Denmark’s data protection authority Datatilsynet (“Danish DPA”) announced its guidance that Google Analytics, Google’s audience measurement tool, is not compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as the tool transfers personal data to the United States which, following Schrems II, does not offer an adequate level of data protection.

On July 7, 2022, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) sent a draft decision to other EU data protection authorities, proposing to block Meta’s transfers of personal data from the EU to the United States.

On June 23, 2022, Italy’s data protection authority (the “Garante”) determined that a website’s use of the audience measurement tool Google Analytics is not compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as the tool transfers personal data to the United States, which does not offer an adequate level of data protection. In making this determination, the Garante joins other EU data protection authorities, including the French and Austrian regulators, that also have found use of the tool to be unlawful.

On May 11, 2022, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2021 (the “Report”). The Report provides an overview of the CNIL’s enforcement activities in 2021. The report notably shows a significant increase in the CNIL’s activity.

On April 7, 2022, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) released a statement on the announcement of a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (the “Statement”).

On March 25, 2022, the European Commission and United States issued a joint statement announcing an agreement in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (the “Joint Statement”).

On February 22, 2022, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) adopted its final Guidelines 04/2021 on Codes of Conduct as tools for transfers (the “Guidelines”), following a public consultation that took place in 2021.

On March 16, 2022, Google announced the launch of its new analytics solution, “Google Analytics 4.” Google Analytics 4 aims, among other things, to address recent developments in the EU regarding the use of analytics cookies and data transfers resulting from such use.

On February 10, 2022, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) ruled the transfer of EU personal data from the EU to the U.S. through the use of the Google Analytics cookie to be unlawful. In its decision, the CNIL held that an organization using Google Analytics was in violation of the GDPR’s data transfer requirements. The CNIL ordered the organization to comply with the GDPR, and to stop using Google Analytics, if necessary.

On February 2, 2022, the Secretary of State placed the UK Information Commissioner’s Office's (“ICO's ”) final international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”) and international data transfer addendum to the European Commission’s standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for international data transfers (“Addendum”) before the European Parliament. The IDTA and Addendum are set to come into force on March 21, 2022, but the ICO advises that they are of use to organizations immediately. The ICO also has stated that it intends to publish additional guidance on use of the IDTA and Addendum.

View the ICO’s final drafts of the IDTA and Addendum.

The Austrian data protection authority (the “Austrian DPA”) recently published a decision in a case brought against an Austrian website provider and Google by the non-governmental organization co-founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, None of Your Business (“NOYB”). The Austrian DPA ruled that the use of Google Analytics cookies by the website operator violates both Chapter V of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which establishes rules on international data transfers, and the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

On January 5, 2022, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) issued a decision against the European Parliament (“EP”). The case resulted from a complaint submitted by certain Members of the European Parliament (“MEPs”) who alleged that the Parliament’s use of cookies violated data protection law, including requirements regarding the transfer of personal data outside of the EU. The EDPS is responsible for overseeing compliance of data protection rules by the EU institutions.

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 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 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 April 27, 2021, the Portuguese Data Protection Authority (Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados, the “CNPD”) ordered the National Institute of Statistics (the “INE”) to suspend, within 12 hours, any international transfers of personal data to the U.S. or other third countries that have not been recognized as providing an adequate level of data protection.

On March 15, 2021, the state Data Protection Authority of Bavaria (“Bavarian DPA”) declared the use of U.S. e-mail marketing service Mailchimp by a fashion magazine (acting as controller) in Bavaria impermissible due to non-compliance with Schrems II mitigation steps in relation to the transfer of e-mail addresses to Mailchimp in the U.S.

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 December 9, 2020, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing on the Invalidation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the Future of Transatlantic Data Flows. The hearing explored the policy issues that led to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) invalidation of the Privacy Shield framework in the Schrems II ruling. The hearing also discussed effects of the CJEU’s decision on U.S. businesses and what steps the U.S. government may take to develop a successor data transfer framework, including comprehensive federal privacy legislation.

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 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 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 October 29, 2020, the non-governmental organization co-founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, None of Your Business (“NOYB”), announced it can now file representative actions and claim damages on behalf of consumers for violations of various laws regarding consumer protection (including data protection law) in Belgium. Specifically, in a decision published in the Official Gazette on September 30, 2020, the Belgian Minister of Employment, Economy and Consumer Affairs approved NOYB as a qualified entity under the collective action scheme set forth in the Belgian ...

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 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 28, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, released a White Paper entitled Information on U.S. Privacy Safeguards Relevant to SCCs and Other EU Legal Bases for EU-U.S. Data Transfers after Schrems II (the “White Paper”). The White Paper outlines privacy safeguards in and updates to the U.S. surveillance provisions flagged by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in its Schrems II decision. It is intended to serve as a resource for companies transferring personal data from the EU to the U.S. in the wake of the CJEU’s decision overturning the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. Particularly, it focuses on companies relying on Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) for data transfers, and provides information to help them determine whether the U.S. ensures adequate privacy protections for companies’ data.

On September 8, 2020, the Swiss Data Protection Authority (the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner, “FDPIC”), announced in a position statement that it no longer considers the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield adequate for the purposes of transfers of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S. This decision follows the July 2020 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case, which invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for EU-U.S. transfers of personal data. This ruling was considered as part of the annual review of the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework by the FDPIC since, as Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it is not bound by the CJEU ruling.

On September 4, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) announced that it established two taskforces following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case.

On September 3, 2020, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE Committee”) of the European Parliament held a meeting to discuss the future of EU-U.S. data flows following the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). In addition to Members of the European Parliament (“MEPs”), the meeting’s participants included Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders, European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) Chair Andrea Jelinek and Maximilian Schrems. Importantly, Commissioner Reynders stated during the meeting that the new Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) might be adopted by the end of 2020, at the earliest.

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).

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued two new sets of FAQs in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) recent decision to invalidate the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in Schrems II. We previously reported on the Schrems II ruling and its implication for businesses that transfer personal data to the U.S. The new FAQs from the Department of Commerce address the impact of the decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

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 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”) 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.

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 December 19, 2019, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) handed down his opinion in the so-called “Schrems II” case (case C-311/18). He recommended that the CJEU uphold the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a mechanism for transferring personal data outside of the EU. Given that SCCs are the key data transfer mechanism used by many organizations to transfer personal data outside of the EU, the opinion has far-reaching repercussions and will be welcomed by businesses across the globe.

On July 9, 2019, the hearing in the so-called Schrems II case (case C-311/18) took place at the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Luxembourg. The main parties involved in the proceedings, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“Irish DPA”), Facebook Ireland Ltd. and the Austrian activist Max Schrems, presented their arguments to the court. In addition, a number of other stakeholders intervened during the hearing, including representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Data Protection Board, several EU Member States (including Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK) and the U.S. government, as well as a number of industry lobby groups and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. government expressed its wish to join the legal proceedings brought by Max Schrems concerning the validity of international data transfers under EU Standard Contractual Clauses.

Along with the U.S. government, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation and the Business Software Alliance, an industry trade group, also informed Ireland’s High Court of their desire to be added to the case as amici curiae, or "friends of the court."

On June 9, 2015, Max Schrems tweeted that the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) will delay his opinion in Europe v. Facebook, a case challenging the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The opinion was previously scheduled to be issued on June 24. No new date has been set.