There have been many headlines today about the UK Government’s plans to reform UK data protection law. We are still reviewing the (near 150-page) consultation document, but set out below a dozen proposals that we thought might pique the interest of readers of our blog.
Continue Reading 12 Eye-Catching Proposals In The UK Government’s Plan To Reform UK Data Protection Law

On 2 September 2021, the transition year for the Children’s code (or Age Appropriate Design Code) published by the UK Information Commissioner (“ICO”) ended. The ICO’s Children’s code was first published in September 2020, with a 12-month transition period. In an accompanying blog, the ICO has stated that it will be “proactive in requiring social media platforms, video and music streaming sites and the gaming industry to tell [the ICO] how their services are designed in line with the code.”

Over the summer, the ICO has also approved two certification schemes under the UK GDPR. The certification schemes provide organizations with a mechanism to demonstrate their high level of commitment to data protection compliance.


Continue Reading UK ICO’s Children’s Code Transition Year Ends and ICO Approves Related Certification Schemes

On 26 August 2021, the UK Government unveiled a package of announcements which effectively set out its post-Brexit data strategy.

This blog looks at the politics around the costs and benefits of a Brexit divergence dividend in this sector, which the UK Government views as a key area of competitive advantage.
Continue Reading Data Divergence: A Brexit Dividend?

On Aug. 20, 2021, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress promulgated China’s Personal Information Protection Law, which will take effect Nov. 1, 2021. Serving as China’s first comprehensive law in the personal information protection area and based on China’s Constitution, the PIPL aims to “protect the rights and interests of individuals,” “regulate personal information processing activities,” and “facilitate reasonable use of personal information” (Article 1).
Continue Reading Analyzing China’s PIPL and How It Compares to the EU’s GDPR

On August 11, 2021, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) opened a public consultation to solicit stakeholder input regarding the UK’s approach to regulating international transfers of personal data under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR”) (see here).  To kick off this initiative, the ICO published a consultation paper setting out various policy options that the UK is considering, as well as:

  • a draft set of contractual templates to facilitate transfers of personal data outside the UK, including: (1) a draft international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”); and (2) a draft international transfer addendum to be appended to the recently approved EU standard contractual clauses (“EU Addendum”); and
  • a draft transfer impact assessment tool designed to help controllers and processors transferring personal data under the UK GDPR satisfy the requirements articulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II decision (see here).

The ICO has requested that interested stakeholders submit their feedback by no later than October 7, 2021.  In this blog post, we summarize these documents and tools, and identify topics that interested stakeholders may want to address when preparing their submission to the public consultation.


Continue Reading UK Information Commissioner’s Office Opens Public Consultation on Policy Proposals and Documentation for International Transfers

On July 15, 2021, the Belgian Supervisory Authority (“SA”) released a 40-page draft recommendation on the use of biometric data and launched a public consultation to solicit feedback about it.

Most notably, the SA points out that there is no valid legal basis other than explicit consent (with all the GDPR limitations attached to it) that would enable the processing of biometric data for authentication purposes (e.g., security), because Belgian lawmakers failed to adopt the required national legislation to supplement the GDPR (specifically, to underpin the public interest exception found in Art. 9(2)(g) GDPR for processing sensitive personal data).  The SA considers this outcome a departure from the rules that applied prior to the GDPR, and will therefore allow a one-year grace period to give controllers and lawmakers sufficient time to address the issue.


Continue Reading Belgian Supervisory Authority Launches Public Consultation on the Use of Biometric Data

With the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination programs across the EU and the UK, employers are faced with questions about whether or not they are legally permitted to ask employees about their vaccination status and, if so, how that information may be used.

Employers may wish to inquire about the vaccination status of their employees in order to comply with their general obligation to ensure a safe workplace and minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19.  This raises privacy issues under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), because employees’ vaccination status falls within a special category of personal data that concerns the health of individuals (Art. 9(1)).  This category is subject to more stringent data protection measures due to the sensitive and personal nature of data, and can only be processed in very limited circumstances (Art. 9(2)).


Continue Reading COVID-19: Processing of Vaccination Data by Employers in Europe

On July 2 and July 5, 2021, China’s Cybersecurity Review Office (“CRO”), an office established under the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) responsible for coordinating the implementation of China’s Cybersecurity Review framework (more details about this framework can be found in our previous blogpost, available here), announced that it had initiated cybersecurity reviews against four mobile applications operated by three Chinese companies:  Didi Chuxing (“Didi”), Yunmanman, Huochebang and BOSS Zhipin (announcements are available here and here).

According to CRO’s announcements, these cybersecurity reviews were initiated based on requirements under the National Security Law (“NSL”), the Cybersecurity Law (“CSL”) and the Measures on Cybersecurity Review (“Measures”) and are aimed at “preventing national data security risks, maintaining national security and safeguarding public interests.”  This is the first time that CRO publically announced the initiation of cybersecurity reviews against companies after the Measures took effect on June 1, 2020.  Per the announcements, these apps are prohibited from registering new user accounts during the review period.

Separately, on July 4, CAC ordered the Didi app to be removed from Chinese app stores on the ground that the app seriously violated Chinese laws and regulations by “illegally collecting and using personal information” (the announcement is available here).  It is unclear whether this “take down” order is related to CRO’s ongoing cybersecurity review of Didi.

This post explains the requirements and procedures of cybersecurity review under the Measures, analyzes the focus of the current review against these three companies, and provides more background on recent enforcement actions against apps illegally collecting and processing personal information.
Continue Reading China Initiates Cybersecurity Review of Didi ChuXing and Three Other Chinese Mobile Applications

On June 24, 2021, Australian parliament passed legislation establishing a framework for its enforcement agencies to access certain electronic data held by companies outside of Australia for law enforcement and national security purposes.  The law paves the way for the establishment of a bilateral agreement with the United States under the U.S. Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act.

Similar to the function of the CLOUD Act, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 enables Australian enforcement authorities to compel companies covered by the statute to provide data, regardless of where the data is stored.  The legislation introduces international production orders, a form of legal process for compelling real-time interception of communications or the production of stored communications and telecommunications data, which can be served directly on communications providers in foreign countries with which Australia has an agreement.
Continue Reading Australia Passes Cross-Border Data Access Law, Creates a Pathway for CLOUD Act Bilateral Agreement

On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted two decisions finding that the UK’s data protection regime provides an “adequate” level of protection for personal data transferred to the UK from the EU.  The first decision covers transfers governed by the GDPR, and permits private companies located in the EU to continue to transfer personal data to the UK without the need for additional arrangements (such as the Commission’s new Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), which we discuss here).  The second decision covers transfers under the Data Protection and Law Enforcement Directive, and permits EU law enforcement agencies to continue to transfer personal data to their counterparts in the UK.
Continue Reading European Commission Adopts Final UK Adequacy Decisions