Photo of Dan Cooper

Dan Cooper

Daniel Cooper is co-chair of Covington’s Data Privacy and Cyber Security Practice, and advises clients on information technology regulatory and policy issues, particularly data protection, consumer protection, AI, and data security matters. He has over 20 years of experience in the field, representing clients in regulatory proceedings before privacy authorities in Europe and counseling them on their global compliance and government affairs strategies. Dan regularly lectures on the topic, and was instrumental in drafting the privacy standards applied in professional sport.

According to Chambers UK, his "level of expertise is second to none, but it's also equally paired with a keen understanding of our business and direction." It was noted that "he is very good at calibrating and helping to gauge risk."

Dan is qualified to practice law in the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Belgium. He has also been appointed to the advisory and expert boards of privacy NGOs and agencies, such as the IAPP's European Advisory Board, Privacy International and the European security agency, ENISA.

Contact:Read more about Dan CooperEmail

Now that the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) has entered into force, the EU institutions are turning their attention to the proposal for a directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (the so-called “AI Liability Directive”).  Although the EU Parliament and the Council informally agreed on the text of the proposal in December 2023 (see our previous blog posts here and here), the text of the proposal is expected to change based on a complementary impact assessment published by the European Parliamentary Research Service on September 19.

Brief Overview of the AI Liability Directive

The AI Liability Directive was proposed to establish harmonised rules in fault-based claims (e.g., negligence).  These were to cover the disclosure of evidence on high-risk artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems and the burden of proof including, in certain circumstances, a rebuttable presumption of causation between the fault of the defendant (i.e., the provider or deployer of an AI system) and the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output.

Potential Changes to the AI Liability Directive

In July, news reports leaked a slightly amended version of the European Commission’s AI Liability Directive proposal to align the wording with the adopted AI Act (Council document ST 12523 2024 INIT).  The amendments reflect the difference in numbering between the proposed AI Act and the enacted version.

Over the summer, the EU Parliamentary Research Service carried out a complementary impact assessment to evaluate whether the AI Liability Directive should remain on the EU’s list of priorities.  In particular, the new assessment was to determine whether the AI Liability Directive is still needed in light of the proposal for a new Product Liability Directive (see our blog post here).Continue Reading The EU Considers Changing the EU AI Liability Directive into a Software Liability Regulation

On September 12, 2024, the European Commission announced that it will launch a public consultation on additional standard contractual clauses for international transfers of personal data to non-EU controllers and processors that are subject to the EU GDPR extra-territorially (“Additional SCCs”), something that has been promised by the European Commission…

Continue Reading EU Commission Announces New SCCs for International Transfers to Non-EU Controllers and Processors Subject to the GDPR

On August 23, 2024, the Brazilian Data Protection Authority (“ANPD”) published Resolution 19/2024, approving the Regulation on international data transfers and the content of standard contractual clauses (the “Regulation”).  The Regulation implements the international data transfer framework under the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (“LGPD”).

Under the LGPD, international data transfers from Brazil to a third country are permitted if: (i) the ANPD recognizes the third country as providing adequate protection for personal data; (ii) the data exporter and data importer enter into standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”), binding corporate rules, or special contractual clauses; or (iii) one of the specific cases listed in the LGPD applies (e.g., the transfer is necessary to protect the life of the data subject, the data subject consents to the transfer, or the ANPD authorizes the transfer).  The Regulation relates to the data transfer instruments mentioned in (i) and (ii).

Standard Contractual Clauses
The Regulation approves and publishes SCCs for the transfer of personal data outside of Brazil without ANPD’s authorization.  The SCCs cover both controller-to-controller and controller-to-processor international data transfers.  Like the EU SCCs, they are contracts signed between the data exporter (in Brazil) and the data importer (in a third country).  The parties may not modify them.  The ANPD may allow the transfer of personal data outside of Brazil on the basis of “equivalent SCCs” adopted by third countries, provided that they are compatible with the LGPD.  The ANPD has not (yet) indicated that it would recognize the EU SCCs as equivalent.

Brazilian controllers that use contractual clauses to transfer personal data internationally must replace those contracts with the newly published SCCs by August 22, 2025.Continue Reading Brazil Issues New Regulation on International Data Transfers

On May 30, 2024, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) ruled that any button a consumer uses to order a service online must clearly indicate that the consumer commits to pay the price for the relevant service by affirmatively clicking on it. (Conny Case C-400/22) At issue was whether…

Continue Reading CJEU Clarifies Online “Order Buttons” Must Indicate that the Consumer is Assuming an Obligation to Pay

On May 20, 2024, a proposal for a law on artificial intelligence (“AI”) was laid before the Italian Senate.

The proposed law sets out (1) general principles for the development and use of AI systems and models; (2) sectorial provisions, particularly in the healthcare sector and for scientific research for healthcare; (3) rules on the national strategy on AI and governance, including designating the national competent authorities in accordance with the EU AI Act; and (4) amendments to copyright law. 

We provide below an overview of the proposal’s key provisions.

Objectives and General Principles

The proposed law aims to promote a “fair, transparent and responsible” use of AI, following a human-centered approach, and to monitor potential economic and social risks, as well as risks to fundamental rights.  The law will sit alongside and complement the EU AI Act (for more information on the EU AI Act, see our blogpost here).  (Article 1)

The proposed law sets out general principles, based on the principles developed by the Commission’s High-level expert group on artificial intelligence, pursuing three broad objectives:

  1. Fair algorithmic processing. Research, testing, development, implementation and application of AI systems must respect individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and the principles of transparency, proportionality, security, protection of personal data and confidentiality, accuracy, non-discrimination, gender equality and inclusion.
  2. Protection of data. The development of AI systems and models must be based on data and processes that are proportionate to the sectors in which they’re intended to be used, and ensure that data is accurate, reliable, secure, qualitative, appropriate and transparent.  Cybersecurity throughout the systems’ lifecycle must be ensured and specific security measures adopted.
  3. Digital sustainability. The development and implementation of AI systems and models must ensure human autonomy and decision-making, prevention of harm, transparency and explainability.  (Article 3)

Continue Reading Italy Proposes New Artificial Intelligence Law

On January 17, 2024, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its report on the 2023 Coordinated Enforcement Framework (“CEF”), which examines the current landscape and obstacles faced by data protection officers (“DPOs”) across the EU.  In particular, the report provides a snapshot of the findings of each supervisory authority…

Continue Reading EDPB 2023 Coordinated Enforcement Framework on DPOs: What Are the Key Takeaways for Organizations?

On February 28, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) announced that EU supervisory authorities (“SAs”) will undertake a coordinated enforcement action in 2024 regarding data subjects’ right of access under the GDPR.  For context, the EDPB selects a particular topic each year to serve as the focus for pan-EU coordinated…

Continue Reading EDPB’s 2024 Coordinated Enforcement Action on the Access Right: What Can You Expect?

From February 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) will apply to providers of intermediary services (e.g., cloud services, file-sharing services, search engines, social networks and online marketplaces). These entities will be required to comply with a number of obligations, including implementing notice-and-action mechanisms, complying with detailed rules on terms and conditions, and publishing transparency reports on content moderation practices, among others. For more information on the DSA, see our previous blog posts here and here.

As part of its powers conferred under the DSA, the European Commission is empowered to adopt delegated and implementing acts* on certain aspects of implementation and enforcement of the DSA. In 2023, the Commission adopted one delegated act on supervisory fees to be paid by very large online platforms and very large online search engines (“VLOPs” and “VLOSEs” respectively), and one implementing act on procedural matters relating to the Commission’s enforcement powers. The Commission has proposed several other delegated and implementing acts, which we set out below. The consultation period for these draft acts have now passed, and we anticipate that they will be adopted in the coming months.

Pending Delegated Acts

  • Draft Delegated Act on Conducting Independent Audits. This draft delegated act defines the steps that designated VLOPs and VLOSEs will need to follow to verify the independence of the auditors, particularly setting the rules for the procedures, methodology and templates used. According to the draft delegated act, designated VLOPS and VLOSEs should be subject to their first audit at the latest 16 months after their designation. The consultation period for this draft delegated act ended on June 2, 2023.
  • Draft Delegated Act on Data Access for Research. This draft delegated act specifies the conditions under which vetted researchers may access data from VLOPs and VLOSEs. The consultation period for this draft delegated act ended on May 31, 2023.

Continue Reading Draft Delegated and Implementing Acts Pursuant to the Digital Services Act

On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). The decision, which took effect on the day of its adoption, concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EEA to companies certified to the DPF. This blog post summarizes the key findings of the decision, what organizations wishing to certify to the DPF need to do and the process for certifying, as well as the impact on other transfer mechanisms such as the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”), and on transfers from the UK and Switzerland.

Background

The Commission’s adoption of the adequacy decision follows three key recent developments:

  1. the endorsement of the draft decision by a committee of EU Member State representatives;
  2. the designation by the U.S. Department of Justice of the European Union and Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway (which together with the EU form the EEA) as “qualifying states,” for the purposes of President Biden’s Executive Order 14086 on Enhancing Safeguards for U.S. Signals Intelligence Activities (“EO 14086”). This designation enables EU data subjects to submit complaints concerning alleged violations of U.S. law governing signals intelligence activities to the redress mechanism set forth in the Executive Order and implementing regulations (see our previous blog post here); and
  3. updates to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s policies and procedures to implement the safeguards established under EO 14086, announced by the U.S. Office of Director of National Intelligence on July 3, 2023.

The final adequacy decision, which largely corresponds to the Commission’s draft decision (see our prior blog post here), concludes “the United States … ensures a level of protection for personal data transferred from the Union to certified organisations in the United States under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework that is essentially equivalent to the one guaranteed by [the GDPR]” (para. 201).

Key Findings of the Decision

In reaching the final decision, the Commission confirms a few key points:Continue Reading European Commission Adopts Adequacy Decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework

Late yesterday, the EU institutions reached political agreement on the European Data Act (see the European Commission’s press release here and the Council’s press release here).  The proposal for a Data Act was first tabled by the European Commission in February 2022 as a key piece of the European…

Continue Reading Political Agreement Reached on the European Data Act