In the wake of a recent announcement by a major Dutch bank that it would start providing its customers with personalized advertisements based on their spending patterns, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has sent a letter to all Dutch banks urging them to thoroughly review their direct marketing practices. The DPA specifically asked any bank contemplating the use of transaction data for direct marketing to reconsider. In its analysis, the DPA may have introduced a very onerous obligation to re-collect personal data for every single use.
As companies continue to grapple with interpreting how the GDPR’s principles apply to their own businesses, in particular contexts, there is a growing need for data protection regulators to provide clarity on the practical application of the regulation. In the UK, the Information Commissioner has recently taken steps to address these concerns through the announcement of a ‘Regulatory Sandbox’.
On 8 July 2019, the UK data protection authority issued a notice of its intention to fine British Airways GBP 183.39 million (approx. USD 229.46 million) for infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation. The proposed fine relates to a data breach in which personal data of approximately 500,000 customers were compromised.
On 2 July 2019, Hogan Lovells’ Amsterdam office will host the in-person seminar “Protect Your Data!” This English-language seminar follows a popular Dutch-language edition of the seminar. Joke Bodewits and Ruud van der Velden will discuss recent EU legislation, and focus on “lessons learned” for companies with respect to privacy, cybersecurity, and trade secrets. The in-person seminar is of interest to in-house counsel, in-house patent attorneys, privacy officers, CISO’s and IT managers.
Clinical trials in the EU include the collection of sensitive health data from patients. Trial sponsors are obliged to reconcile their respect of regulations governing data protection with regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials. The GDPR¹ could not fully harmonize these rules since this area is already heavily regulated by public health regulations that vary between EU Member States. One of the most disconcerting areas of divergence between EU Member States is the different national positions on whether patient consent is a valid legal ground for processing personal data in clinical trials.
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office in Poland imposed a fine amounting to PLN 943,470 for failing to fulfil the company’s transparency obligations towards over six million data subjects under Article 14 of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation. This is the first fine imposed by the Polish DPA under the GDPR and Poland’s Act on Personal Data Protection of 10 May 2018 implementing the GDPR. The decision provides some limited insights into the interpretation of the term “disproportionate effort” within the meaning of Article 14(5)(b) of the GDPR.
It’s no secret that a hot topic, perhaps the hot topic, in the European data protection world at present is the interplay between the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive, in particular how it affects online advertising involving cookies. The European Data Protection Board recently released an opinion on this topic, and on 21 March the Court of Justice of the European Union released Advocate-General Szpunar’s opinion in the case of Planet49, which discusses the requirements for valid consent, in the context of both cookies under the e-Privacy Directive and more general data processing under the GDPR.
On 14 March 2019, the Dutch data protection authority announced its fining structure for violations of the European General Data Protection Regulation and the Dutch law implementing the GDPR.
Many companies have been struggling with GDPR implementation over the past two years, putting much effort into new roles, privacy concepts, and workflows. Now that the dust of the immediate GDPR compliance rush is settling, the first details of fines imposed under the GDPR and the number of cases pending with Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) in Europe are being made public. In Germany, DPAs are investigating a broad range of non-compliance issues and showing a tendency toward increasing their enforcement activities, to the point that we expect an announcement of increasing GDPR sanctions and fines in Germany in the near future.
Article 83 of the GDPR provides for two levels of administrative fines: a lower level – maximum of €10 million or 2% of the global turnover – for violations relating to record-keeping, data security, data protection impact assessments, data protection by design and default, and data processing agreements; and a higher level – maximum of €20 million or 4% of the global turnover – for violations relating to data protection principles, the legal basis for processing, information to data subjects, the prohibition of processing sensitive data, denial of data subjects’ rights, and data transfers to non-EU countries.
A draft act on adjusting the Polish legal system to the provisions of the GDPR is under way in the lower house of the Polish Parliament (Sejm). The draft act contains, among others, provisions amending the rules for processing personal data by banks, credit institutions, loan companies and other entities regulated by Polish banking law.
With the coming into effect of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), those conducting clinical trials in the EU face a complex set of rules ranging from lawful grounds for processing and transparency to restrictions on data transfers and secondary uses. To assist with this task the European Commission is in the process of adopting a Q&A document on which it has sought the advice from the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”).
Right now, the whole of the U.K. appears to be on the same spot looking over a precipice. However, this is not the moment to be blind. As politicians struggle to find a magic formula for a prosperous Brexit, businesses are stepping up their efforts to mitigate the damage of a possible “no-deal Brexit.” The data protection community is no different. The proposed withdrawal agreement would have preserved the status quo in data protection terms, at least until the end of the transition period in December 2020. However, if the U.K. leaves the EU without a deal, the implications for international data flows and privacy compliance generally will be severe. Therefore, British pragmatism demands an urgent and thorough approach to preparing for the eventuality of a no-deal Brexit.
In this hoganlovells.com interview, Mark Parsons, a Hogan Lovells partner based in Hong Kong, summarizes the current status of IoT-related policies in the Asia-Pacific region and discusses changes anticipated in 2019.
The Brazilian General Data Protection Law (“Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados” or “LGPD”), passed by Congress on 14 August 2018, will come into effect on 15 February 2020. The new data protection law significantly improves Brazil’s existing legal framework by regulating the use of personal data by the public and private sectors. Very similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) implemented in the European Union, the LGPD imposes strict regulations on the collection, use, processing, and storage of electronic and physical personal data. In conjunction with the passing of the LGPD, the National Data Protection Authority will be created in order to adequately implement the new legislation.
Amid the constitutional and political uncertainties surrounding the Brexit process, the UK Government has provided welcome assurance on the data protection front. Guidance issued by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) confirms how UK data protection law will work in the event the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Whilst the Government still regards a No Deal Brexit as “unlikely”, given the extremely severe implications of that scenario for transfers of personal data into and out of the UK, the DCMS confirmation is hugely helpful in terms of the preparations needed for that eventuality.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation is now a fully functioning six-month old creature, which has brought with it significant evolutionary changes. One of the most notable innovations of the new European data protection framework is its ambitious extra-territorial application. The introduction of brand new grounds for the applicability of the law was a major development. As a result, and as essential as this is, the GDPR’s territorial scope of application has become one of the most difficult issues to pin down. Therefore, the publication of the European Data Protection Board’s draft guidelines on the territorial scope of the GDPR marks an important milestone in understanding the implications of this influential framework.
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has recently published its Opinion on the (United Kingdom) Information Commissioner’s list of processing activities which would require a Data Protection Impact Assessment under the GDPR. In its Opinion, the EDPB appears to be moving away from the idea that processing of genetic or location data, on its own, might be enough to trigger the mandatory DPIA requirements of the GDPR. This news will perhaps come as a relief to organisations currently struggling to come to grips with the “new” DPIA process and the resources and time that it demands. But, should we be surprised by the EDPB’s Opinion and will it have a significant impact in practice on the way organisations consider and conduct DPIAs?
On December 29, 2017, the Standardization Administration of China, jointly with the PRC General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, issued the Information Security Technology – Personal Information Security Specification, which officially came into effect on May 1, 2018. The Specification has, in very practical terms, become an important point of reference in evaluating the complex overlay of data protection compliance requirements found in the Cyber Security Law, the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, the e-Commerce Law and other enactments and measures.
The IAPP conference in Munich on 19 September 2018 provided important insights into the work and views of the European Data Protection Board. Isabelle Vereecken and Bas Van Bockel addressed key topics such as data protection impact assessments, international data transfers and the one-stop-shop principle.
As the most comprehensive privacy law to be enacted in the United States thus far, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) has inevitably invited comparisons to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). At first glance, it is clear that the drafters of the CCPA (and the ballot measure that spurred its passage) drew inspiration from the GDPR. However, the CCPA is not a carbon copy of the GDPR, and a GDPR compliance program will not automatically meet the requirements of the CCPA. As businesses begin their CCPA compliance efforts, awareness of these laws’ similarities and differences will be key to creating efficient and effective compliance programs that capitalize on prior GDPR compliance work but also address the unique nuances of the CCPA.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) provides a series of new compliance obligations and operational challenges for companies doing business in California. A vital first step for any company subject to the CCPA and looking to forge a practical path forward is to inventory the personal information (“PI”) that the company collects, stores, and shares with others. As part of our ongoing series on the CCPA and its implications, this post sets out key issues and questions to consider when contemplating a data mapping exercise.
Unless there is a political earthquake (some would say a miracle) Brexit will happen on 29 March 2019. Upon Brexit the UK will cease to be an EU Member State and become a so-called ‘third country’. As a result, UK-based organisations, which in the context of transfers of personal data to countries outside the EU have always been exporters, will become importers of data originating from the EU. This is a serious concern because transfers of personal data from the EU to third countries are severely restricted. So a key UK Government objective from day one has been to ensure that the UK is regarded as an adequate jurisdiction, which would allow unconstrained transfers of personal data from the EU. But will it be?
Words matter. Nowhere is this truer than in legislation, where word choices—often the product of long debate and imperfect compromise—determine the scope and impact of a law. Legislative history can speak volumes about those word choices, and the unique legislative history of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) only highlights the importance of understanding the terms used in the act. We thus focus here on discussing some of the CCPA’s key definitional terms.