If you can remember as far back as December 2021, we published a blog post announcing that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published draft guidelines on the interplay between the territorial scope of the GDPR and the international transfer requirements. Following what must have been an extensive consultation, we are pleased to report that those guidelines were finally finalised on 14 February 2023 (here) and, are even more pleased to report that they contain some very useful illustrations to help you make sense of the concept of international data transfers.Continue Reading The EDPB makes its mind up about transfers
Following a consultation in January 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has published its finalised guidelines on examples of personal data breaches and whether they are notifiable. These guidelines supplement previous guidance on personal data breach notification: the Opinion on Personal Data Breach Notification (Opinion 03/2014) and the general Guidelines on Personal Data Breach Notification under the GDPR (WP 250), both issued by the EDPB’s predecessor, the Article 29 Working Party.
The new guidelines offer welcome clarification on when notifications are required given that some data protection authorities and commentators have acknowledged over-reporting.
In this article we recap on the key takeaways from the finalised guidelines, focussing on key changes made since the January 2021 consultation, and exploring the challenges of managing data breach notifications in multiple jurisdictions.Continue Reading New guidelines on personal data breach notifications
On 13 October 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted the final version of its Guidelines (10/20) on restrictions of data subject rights under article 23 of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) (GDPR) (the Guidelines) during its forty-third plenary session. The adoption comes after a public consultation on the EDPB’s draft guidelines,…
On 19 May 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted Recommendations on the legal basis for the storage of credit card data for the sole purpose of facilitating further online transactions, available here.
Scope of the recommendations
The recommendations specifically address online providers of goods and services who store credit card data to facilitate future purchases once an individual has provided their credit card data to conclude a transaction online.
The recommendations do not apply to payment institutions operating in online stores or public authorities. They also do not apply where credit card data is stored for a different purpose, for example to comply with a legal obligation or to establish a recurring payment.
Why are these recommendations needed?
As the digital economy and e-commerce continue to develop, the risks of using credit card data online also continue to increase. In addition to ever-present payment fraud risks, there is also an increased risk of credit card data security breaches where the credit card data is stored. Controllers must therefore act to reduce the risk of unlawful processing of this data.Continue Reading Storing credit card details for future purchases – EDPB recommends online retailers do so only with consent
On 19 January 2021, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), published a letter dated 11 September 2020, available here, explaining that personal data transfers from UK based companies to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the purposes of regulatory compliance may be permitted under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Firms regulated by the SEC must fulfil requests for documentation made by the SEC and make their books, records or documents available for inspection, to ensure compliance with U.S. federal securities laws, rules and regulations. This calls for the production of information, documentation, and other records, which may include personal data and special category personal data.Continue Reading The ICO offers guidance on personal data transfers to the SEC
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) announced their joint opinions on the draft standard contractual clauses (SCCs) previously published by the European Commission in November 2020. The opinions cover the SCCs between controllers and processors and the SCCs for the transfer of personal data to third countries. We have previously commented on both sets of drafts here and here.
Controller to processor SCCs
In their joint opinion, both the EDPB and the EDPS, welcomed the controller to processor SCCs as a single, strong, and EU-wide accountability tool, which will facilitate compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and provide much needed legal certainty to controllers and processors. However, the EDPB and EDPS noted that more clarity should be provided as to when the controller to processor SCCs can be relied upon. Further amendments were also noted as needed, for example the docking clause, which allows additional entities to accede to the controller to processor SCCs. It was also noted that the SCCs Annexes should be amended to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties as much as possible with regard to each processing activity. The EDPB and EDPS consider these additional amendments as necessary to ensure harmonisation and legal certainty across the EU when it comes to contracts between controllers and their processors.
Continue Reading The EDPB and EDPS adopt joint opinions on the new draft SCCs
On 11 November 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released recommendations on supplementary measures for international transfers (here) and recommendations on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures (here), following the Schrems II decision (see our previous blog here).
As a result of the Schrems II decision, data exporters who use certain transfer mechanisms as an appropriate safeguard for personal data during international transfers, such as Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), are required, on a case by case basis, to assess whether the law of the third country provides a level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA). If such protections are not equivalent, data exporters should consider whether any supplementary measures can be implemented to fill the gaps in protection.Continue Reading The European Data Protection Board releases recommendations on supplementary measures following the Schrems II decision
On 20 October 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) met for its 40th plenary session. During the session, the EDPB adopted final guidelines on Data Protection by Design and by Default (DPbDD) (available here) (the guidelines). See our blog post on the draft DPbDD guidelines, available here.
As a quick reminder, the…
On 8 October 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published new guidelines on relevant and reasoned objection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The guidelines cover the cooperation and consistency provisions set out in Chapter VII of the GDPR, under which supervisory authorities have a duty to exchange all relevant information with each other and cooperate in an endeavor to reach consensus when they coordinate investigations that cross borders in the European Union (EU).
Under Article 60 of the GDPR, the lead supervisory authority (LSA) is required to submit draft decisions to the concerned supervisory authorities, who may then raise a “relevant and reasoned objection” to the LSA within a specific timeframe of four weeks. On review of the relevant and reasoned objection, the LSA can either follow the suggestions of the concerned supervisory authorities and produce a revised draft decision, or disagree with the objections and submit the matter to the EDPB for consideration under the GDPR’s consistency mechanism.
Continue Reading EDPB releases guidelines on relevant and reasoned objection
In September 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released new guidelines on the targeting of social media users (Guidelines) for consultation.
The Guidelines address the privacy risks and legal issues that arise when social media services are used to direct specific messages to users based on particular criteria, such as the users’ perceived interests, preferences and socio-demographic characteristics.
A typical example of this is when a brand (or ‘advertiser’) advertises their products or services on individuals’ social media platforms. Through programmatic advertising (the automated buying and selling of online advertising) and the process of ‘real-time bidding’ (the automated bidding of display advertising inventory in real-time) in particular, advertisers can place personalised adverts on individuals’ social media platforms (e.g. through content feeds or ‘stories’). This process usually involves processing personal data in bid requests, which can include individuals’ web browsing history, age, gender, location and network connections. Advertisers submit bids to have their adverts placed on individuals’ social media pages based on the perceived likelihood that the individual will be interested. Generally, the more detailed the bid request, the higher the bids are likely to be, so there is more incentive for the parties involved to collect as much personal data as possible through the use of tracking technologies or otherwise. Further, parties within the ad tech ecosystem (such as data brokers) may augment the data collected from the bid request with information from other sources (including offline sources), which they might sell to other stakeholders involved in the targeting process.
The Guidelines split the types of actors involved in the targeting process into four different groups, namely: (1) social media providers; (2) social media users; (3) targeters (e.g. advertisers); and (4) ‘other actors’ which may be involved (e.g. supply side platforms (SSPs), demand side platforms (DSPs), data management platforms (DMPs), data brokers, ad networks and ad exchanges).
The Guidelines identify the potential risks of targeting for social media users, such as loss of control over personal data, potential discrimination and potential manipulation of individuals (as targeting mechanisms seek to influence individuals’ behaviour and choices).
The Guidelines also seek to clarify the roles, responsibilities and relationships between social media providers and targeters and explain the key data protection requirements and documentation that should be in place.Continue Reading EDPB releases draft guidelines on the targeting of social media users