General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

On 2 December 2024, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted its draft guidelines on Article 48 GDPR (the “Draft Guidelines”). The Draft Guidelines are intended to provide guidance on the GDPR requirements applicable to private companies in the EU that receive requests or binding demands for personal data from public authorities (e.g., law enforcement or national security agencies, as well as other regulators) located outside the EU.

The Draft Guidelines focus in particular on Article 48 GDPR, which states that a binding demand from a non-EU public authority “requiring a controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may only be recognised or enforceable in any manner if based on an international agreement, such as a mutual legal assistance treaty, in force between the requesting third country and the Union or a Member State, without prejudice to other grounds for transfer pursuant to this Chapter.”

As an initial matter, the EDPB addresses the question of whether Article 48 operates as a blocking statute—i.e., a prohibition on disclosure of personal data subject to the GDPR to non-EU public authorities in the absence of an international agreement (e.g., a mutual legal assistance treaty) that permits that disclosure. The Draft Guidelines state that, even in the absence of such an international agreement, companies can in principle disclose personal data in response to such demands, provided that they (a) have a valid legal basis for doing so under Article 6 GDPR, and (b) can validly transfer the personal data outside the EU in accordance with Chapter V GDPR (e.g., on the basis of an EU adequacy decision, “appropriate safeguards”, or one of the derogations set out in Article 49 GDPR). The Draft Guidelines nonetheless make clear that, absent such an international agreement, any demand from a non-EU public authority will not be recognized as a binding demand by, or enforceable in, EU courts.

The Draft Guidelines also provide guidance on the Article 6 legal bases and Chapter V transfer grounds that might apply where a private entity receives a request or demand for personal data from a non-EU public authority. This guidance is broadly consistent with the EDPB’s analysis in its 2019 joint opinion with the EDPS on the CLOUD Act. Of particular note:Continue Reading EDPB adopts draft guidelines on requirements when responding to requests from non-EU public authorities

In December 2023, the Dutch SA fined a credit card company €150,000 for failure to perform a proper data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) in accordance with Art. 35 GDPR for its “identification and verification process”.

First, the Dutch SA decided that the company was required to perform a DPIA because…

Continue Reading Dutch SA Sanctions Credit Card Company for Failure to Perform Data Protection Impact Assessment

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

On April 17, 2023, the Italian Supervisory Authority (“Garante”) published its decision against a company operating digital marketing services finding several GDPR violations, including the use of so-called “dark-patterns” to obtain users’ consent.  The Garante imposed a fine of 300.000 EUR. 

We provide below a brief overview of the Garante’s key findings.

Background

The sanctioned company operated marketing campaigns on behalf of its clients, via text messages, emails and automated calls.  The company’s database of contacts was formed by data collected directly through its online portals (offering news, sweepstakes and trivia), as well as data purchased from data brokers.

Key Findings

Dark patterns.  The Garante found that, during the subscription process, the user was asked for specific consent relating to marketing purposes and sharing of data with third parties for marketing.  If the user did not select either of the checkboxes, a banner would pop-up, indicating the lack of consent, and displaying a prominent consent button.  The site also displayed a “continue without accepting” option, but this was placed at the bottom of the webpage – outside of the pop-up banner – in simple text form and smaller font size, which made it less visible than the “consent” button.  The Garante, referring to the EDPB’s guidelines (see our blogpost here), held that the use of such interfaces and graphic elements constituted “dark patterns” with the aim of pushing individuals towards providing consent.

Double opt-in.  The Garante noted that consent was not adequately documented.  While the company argued that it required a “double opt-in”, the evidence showed that a confirmation request was not consistently sent out to users.  The Garante recalled that double opt-in is not a mandatory requirement in Italy, but constitutes nonetheless an appropriate method to document consent.Continue Reading Italian Garante Fines Digital Marketing Company Over Use of Dark Patterns

On June 23, 2022 the Italian data protection authority (“Garante”) released a general statement (here) flagging the unlawfulness of data transfers to the U.S. resulting from the use of Google Analytics.  The Garante invites all Italian website operators, both public and private, to verify that the use of cookies and other tracking tools on their websites is compliant with data protection law, in particular with regards to the use of Google Analytics and similar services. 

The Garante’s statement follows an order (here) issued against an Italian website operator to stop data transfers to Google LLC in the U.S., and joins other European data protection authorities in their actions relating to the use of Google Analytics (see our previous blogs here and here).

Below we summarize the Garante’s key considerations.

  • Google Analytics’ “IP Anonymization” feature

The Garante analyzes Google Analytics’ so-called “IP-Anonymization” feature, which allows the transfer of user IP addresses to Google Analytics after masking the IP address’ last octet.  The Garante finds that such feature constitutes a pseudonymization of the IP address, and not anonymization.  According to the Garante, the feature does not prevent Google LLC from re-identifying the user, given Google’s capabilities to enrich such data through additional information it holds, especially in circumstances where those users maintain and use a Google account.Continue Reading Italian Garante bans use of Google Analytics