Privacy Shield Goes To Court

Poyner Spruill LLP
Contact

Poyner Spruill LLP

In 2015, the European Court of Justice struck down Safe Harbor, the legal device that enabled data transfers from the European Union to the United States. This summer, Safe Harbor’s successor, Privacy Shield, may meet the same fate.

Privacy Shield was supposed to offer more robust data privacy protections than Safe Harbor. The European Commission also pledged to monitor compliance on an ongoing basis.

Even so, critics have complained from the outset that Privacy Shield is a self-regulating system reliant on self-serving assurances for enforcement. At best, they contend that Privacy Shield is no more than a rebranded Safe Harbor. For this reason, we have predicted that Privacy Shield may be on borrowed time.

That time may be at hand. On July 1, the EU General Court will consider French privacy group La Quadrature du Net’s complaint against Privacy Shield. La Quadrature du Net cites U.S. government surveillance to argue that Privacy Shield violates EU privacy law.

Privacy Shield’s legal position has been strengthened by the support of the Commission, nations such as France and the UK, as well as major technology companies such as Microsoft. On the other hand, the Court has concerns about the relative weakness of American privacy laws and Washington’s slow pace in filling critical privacy related posts as members of the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

One high profile instance that embarrassed Privacy Shield proponents involved controversial campaign analytics company Cambridge Analytica. SCL Elections, a Cambridge Analytica affiliate, remained Privacy Shield certified, enabling it to process data outside the European Union under pledges of “adequate protection.” The incident, along with other concerns, prompted the EU Parliament’s civil liberties committee to vote to suspend Privacy Shield and other mechanisms.

Companies that rely on Privacy Shield should consider alternative data transfer mechanisms such as EU Binding Corporate Rules as contingency planning for an adverse court ruling. A decision is expected later this Fall.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Poyner Spruill LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Poyner Spruill LLP
Contact
more
less

Poyner Spruill LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide