Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of Endemol Shine (Case C‑740/22). In this case, the CJEU was called upon to assess whether oral disclosure of information could be considered as processing of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and to clarify the relationship between personal data protection and public access to documents.

On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of IAB Europe (Case C‑604/22). In this judgment, the CJEU assessed the role of the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) in the processing operations associated with its Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”) and further developed CJEU case law on the concept of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On January 8, 2024, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) opened a consultation on its draft guidance for the use of transfer impact assessments (“Guidance”).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 December 21, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of Krankenversicherung Nordrhein (C-667/21) in which it clarified, among other things, the rules for processing special categories of personal data (hereafter “sensitive personal data”) under Article 9 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the nature of the compensation owed for damages under Article 82 of the GDPR.

On December 14, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of VB v. Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C‑340/21), in which it clarified, among other things, the concept of non-material damage under Article 82 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the rules governing burden of proof under the GDPR.

On December 7, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that credit scoring constitutes automated decision-making, which is prohibited under Article 22 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) unless certain conditions are met. In a case stemming from consumer complaints against German credit bureau SCHUFA, the CJEU found that the company’s reliance on fully automated processes to calculate creditworthiness and extend credit constitutes automated decision-making which produces a legal or similarly significant effect within the meaning of Article 22 of the GDPR.

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 11, 2023, at a plenary session, the European Parliament voted to adopt a resolution on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “Framework”) which calls on the European Commission (the “Commission”) to continue negotiations with its U.S. counterparts with the aim of creating a mechanism that would ensure equivalence and provide the adequate level of protection required by EU data protection law.  The text was adopted with 306 votes in favor, 27 against and 231 abstaining. This resolution follows the draft motion (summary available here) which was published in February 2023 and urged the Commission not to adopt adequacy based on the Framework.

On May 4, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a judgment in the Österreichische Post case (C-300/21). In the decision, the CJEU clarified that a mere infringement of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) is not sufficient to give data subjects the right to receive compensation under Article 82 of the GDPR. Article 82 provides that “any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.”

On February 9, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the X-FAB Dresden case (C-453/21). In this decision, the CJEU clarified the criteria for assessing whether a conflict of interest exists between the Data Protection Officer (“DPO”) position, and other tasks or duties assigned to the DPO.

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 22, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) determined in a preliminary ruling that the general public’s access to information on beneficial ownership constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights (the “Charter”).

On November 15, 2022, the Italian Supreme Court held that an Italian court or competent data protection authority has jurisdiction to issue a global delisting order. A delisting order requires a search engine to remove certain search results about individuals if the data subject’s privacy interests prevail over the general right to expression and information, and the economic interest of the search engine. The case was brought by an Italian individual, who requested a worldwide delisting order, concerning all versions of the search engine, due to potential damage to the applicant's professional interests outside of the European Union.

On May 12, 2022, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted Guidelines 04/2022 on the calculation of administrative fines under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines are intended  to harmonize the methodology supervisory authorities (“SAs”) use when calculating the amount of a GDPR fine and provide illustrative examples to help organizations understand the calculation method.

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 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 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.

On September 27, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth published a white paper on the “GDPR Enforcement Cooperation and the One-Stop-Shop (“OSS”) - Learning from the First Three Years” (the “Paper”). The Paper identifies the challenges faced by the OSS, defines CIPL’s position, and proposes possible solutions to improve the OSS mechanism, taking into account the European Data Protection Board’s (“EDPB”) recent work and decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).

On August 19, 2021, the Belgian Council of State confirmed a decision of the regional Flemish Authorities to contract with an EU branch of a U.S. company using Amazon Web Services (“AWS”).

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 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 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 April 22, 2021, the Belgian Constitutional Court annulled (in French) the framework set forth by the Law of 29 May 2016 (the “Law”) requiring telecommunications providers to retain electronic communications data in bulk.

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 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 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 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 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 6, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down Grand Chamber judgments determining that the ePrivacy Directive (the “Directive”) does not allow for EU Member States to adopt legislation intended to restrict the scope of its confidentiality obligations unless they comply with the general principles of EU law, particularly the principle of proportionality, as well as fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”).

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 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.

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.

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”) 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.

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.

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 May 29, 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, “BGH”), Germany’s highest court for civil and criminal matters, issued its ruling on case Planet49 (I ZR 7/16) regarding consent requirements for the use of cookies and telemarketing activities. In October 2017, the BGH suspended its proceedings and submitted questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for a preliminary ruling regarding the effectiveness of obtaining consent for the use of cookies through a pre-ticked checkbox. As we have previously reported, the CJEU answered these questions in its judgement in Planet49 GmbH v. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (C-673/17), which was issued on October 1, 2019.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has announced via its Twitter feed that it will deliver its judgement in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020. This judgement will determine the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs” or Model Clauses) as a transfer mechanism under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). SCCs are relied on by many global companies, including Facebook and Microsoft, for international transfers of EU personal data.

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 December 10, 2019, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) published a statement regarding compliance with the rules on cookie consent (the “Statement”).

On October 1, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its decision in an important case involving consent for the use of cookies by a German business called Planet49. Importantly, the Court held that (1) consent for cookies cannot be lawfully established through the use of pre-ticked boxes, and (2) any consent obtained regarding cookies cannot be sufficiently informed in compliance with applicable law if the user cannot reasonably comprehend how the cookies employed on a given website will function.

On September 24, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) released its judgments in cases C-507/17, Google v. CNIL and C-136/17, G.C. and Others v. CNIL regarding (1) the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten, referred to in the judgement as the “right to de-referencing,” and (2) the conditions in which individuals may exercise the right to be forgotten in relation to links to web pages containing sensitive data. The Court’s analysis considered both the EU Data Protection Directive and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On March 21, 2019, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar (“Advocate General”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued an Opinion in the Case C-673/17 of Planet49 GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (i.e., the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, the “Bundesverband”), which is currently pending before the CJEU. In the Opinion, the Advocate General provided his views on how to obtain valid consent to the use of cookies in the case.

On January 10, 2019, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar (“Advocate General”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued an Opinion in the case of Google v. CNIL, which is currently pending before the CJEU. In the Opinion, the Advocate General provided his views concerning the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten under the relevant EU Data Protection Directive in the case at hand.

On July 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ireland granted Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) leave to appeal a lower court’s ruling sending a privacy case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems challenged Facebook’s data transfer practices, arguing that Facebook’s use of standard contractual clauses failed to adequately protect EU citizens’ data. Schrems, supported by Irish Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon, argued that the case belonged in the CJEU, the EU’s highest judicial body. The High Court agreed. Facebook’s request to appeal followed.

On January 30, 2018, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (“DRIPA”) was inconsistent with EU law. The judgment, pertaining to the now-expired act, is relevant to current UK surveillance practices and is likely to result in major amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (“IP Act”), the successor of DRIPA.

On October 24, 2017, an opinion issued by the EU’s Advocate General Bot (“Bot”) rejected Facebook’s assertion that its EU data processing activities fall solely under the jurisdiction of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. The non-binding opinion was issued in relation to the CJEU case C-210/16, under which the German courts sought to clarify whether the data protection authority (“DPA”) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein could take action against Facebook with respect to its use of web tracking technologies on a German education provider’s fan page without first providing notice.

On July 26, 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) declared that the envisaged EU-Canada agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Records (“PNR Agreement”) interferes with the fundamental right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data and is therefore incompatible with EU law in its current form. This marks the first instance where the CJEU has been asked to rule on the compatibility of a draft international agreement with the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.