On Episode 18 of Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast, Dan Cooper, Moritz Hüsch, Kristof van Quathem, and Petros Vinis discuss GDPR enforcement, and the evolution of regulatory fines since the GDPR was enacted in 2018.
Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast offers insights into topical global privacy issues and trends. Subscribe to our Inside…
The EU’s ePrivacy Regulation, like the EU GDPR, has been highly anticipated since it was first proposed in 2017. What are the current developments and next steps in the process to enactment? What are some of the complicating factors of the proposed Regulation? Are there major differences between the initial proposal and where the text…
On this special tenth episode of our Inside Privacy Audiocast, we celebrate Data Privacy Day 2021. Join Dan Cooper and Kurt Wimmer as they discuss the key global data privacy developments in 2020 and trends to look out for in 2021.
Covington’s Inside Privacy Audiocast offers insights into topical global privacy issues and trends. Subscribe…
On January 12, 2020, the Spanish Supervisory Authority (“AEPD”) issued guidance on how to audit personal data processing activities that involve Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) (available here, in Spanish). The AEPD’s guidance is directed at data controllers and processors, as well as AI developers, data protection officers (“DPO”), and auditors. The guidance aims to help ensure that products and services which incorporate AI comply with the requirements of the European Union’s (“EU”) General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
Continue Reading Spanish Supervisory Authority Issues Guidance on Auditing Data Processing Activities Involving Artificial Intelligence
On January 13, 2021, the Advocate General (“AG”), Michal Bobek, of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued his Opinion in Case C-645/19 Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”). The AG determined that the one-stop shop mechanism under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) prevents supervisory authorities, who are not the lead supervisory authority (“LSA”) of a controller or processor, from bringing proceedings before their national court, except in limited and exceptional cases specifically provided for by the GDPR. The case will now move to the CJEU for a final judgment.
Continue Reading Supervisory Authorities Cannot Circumvent One-Stop-Shop According to CJEU Advocate General
On December 24th, with a year-end deadline and the holidays fast approaching, European Commission and United Kingdom (“UK”) officials announced they reached a deal on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“Agreement”). Once formally adopted by the European Union (“EU”) institutions, the Agreement will govern the relationship between the EU and UK beginning on January 1, 2021, following the end of the Brexit transition period.
The Agreement is likely to avert a year-end scramble to secure cross-border data transfers between the EU and the UK. Although the final text has not yet been published, a UK government summary of the deal indicates that the parties agreed to allow for the continued free flow of personal data for up to six months to allow time for the EU and UK to adopt mutual “adequacy decisions,” in which each jurisdiction may recognize the other as offering adequate protection for transferred personal data. Absent these adequacy decisions (and the interim period established by the Agreement), organizations would need to consider implementing additional safeguards, such as standard contractual clauses, to transfer personal data between the EU and UK.
Continue Reading Brexit Deal Keeps EU-UK Data Flows Open as Parties Pursue Mutual Adequacy
On December 15, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (“DPC”) fined Twitter International Company (“TIC”) EUR 450,000 (USD 500,000) following a narrow investigation into TIC’s compliance with obligations to (a) notify a personal data breach within 72 hours under Article 33(1) GDPR; and (b) document the facts of the breach under Article 33(5) GDPR. The process to investigate these points took a little under two years, and resulted in a decision of nearly 200 pages.
This is the first time that the DPC has issued a GDPR fine as a lead supervisory authority (“LSA”) after going through the “cooperation” and “consistency” mechanisms that enable other authorities to raise objections and the EDPB to resolve disagreements. The delay in the process and details in the EDPB binding resolution suggest that this was a somewhat arduous process. Several authorities raised objections in response to the DPC’s draft report – regarding the identity of the controller (Irish entity and/or U.S. parent), the competence of the DPC to be LSA, the scope of the investigation, the size of the fine, and other matters. Following some back and forth — most authorities maintained their objections despite the DPC’s explanations — the DPC referred the matter to the EDPB under the GDPR’s dispute resolution procedure. The EDPB considered the objections and dismissed nearly all of them as not being “relevant and reasoned”, but did require the DPC to reassess the level of the proposed fine.
Process aside, the DPC’s decision contains some interesting points on when a controller is deemed to be “aware” of a personal data breach for the purpose of notifying a breach to a supervisory authority. This may be particularly relevant for companies based in Europe that rely on parent companies in the US and elsewhere to process data on their behalf. The decision also underlines the importance of documenting breaches and what details organizations should include in these internal reports.
Continue Reading Twitter Fine: a View into the Consistency Mechanism, and “Constructive Awareness” of Breaches
On April 21, 2020, the Regulation on the Requirements and Reimbursement Process for Digital Health Applications (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen-Verordnung or „DiGAV“, available here) entered into force in Germany. Among other provisions, the DiGAV includes specific IT security and privacy requirements. Shortly after the law took effect, Germany’s Federal Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (“BfArM”) also released an extensive explanatory Guidance (Leitfaden, available here) to the DiGAV.
Independently, on April 15, 2020, the German Federal Office for IT Security (“BSI”) published a draft version of its guidance on “Security Requirements for Digital Health Applications” (BSI TR-03161) (available here). The BSI is now seeking feedback from industry on this draft guidance before releasing a final version.
While the scope of application of the DiGAV and the BSI draft guidance may be limited, the documents can serve to provide useful insights and benchmarks for health applications generally.…