On July 29, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in Case C-40/17 (Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV). This is a landmark decision regarding the assessment of who has the responsibility for complying with data protection legislation in the context of embedding third-party features that regularly takes place on websites.

The CJEU adopted a broad view of the situations in which a “joint controllership” can arise. It held that, under EU data protection legislation, the operator of a website featuring the Facebook ‘Like’ button (a social plugin that causes the transmission to Facebook of website users’ personal data) can qualify as a controller, jointly with Facebook. Consequently, the website operator is directly responsible for complying with legal obligations in this respect, including by informing its users that their personal data will be transferred to Facebook.

However, the CJEU importantly clarified that the website operator’s role as controller (and the corresponding legal obligations) is limited to the collection and transmission of the data to Facebook and does not include any subsequent personal data processing that Facebook carries out.

The CJEU’s findings will potentially affect third-party technologies other than the Facebook ‘Like’ button, which are often incorporated into websites, such as cookies and pixels.


Continue Reading

On 12 February 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”)[1] adopted its first opinion on an “administrative arrangement,” which provides a new mechanism for the transfer of personal data between European Union (“EU”) financial supervisory authorities and securities agencies and their non-EU counterparts.

Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“GDPR”), personal data cannot be transferred from the European Economic Area (“EEA”) to a third country unless the European Commission has decided that such third country is “adequate” from a data protection laws perspective, or “appropriate safeguards” are in place to ensure that the treatment of personal data in the hands of the recipient reflects the GDPR’s high standards. Article 46 of the GDPR provides for various safeguarding options, including the possibility of “provisions to be inserted into administrative arrangements between public authorities or bodies which include enforceable and effective data subject rights.[2] No such “administrative arrangements” have been approved by the EDPB until now.
Continue Reading

In summer 2018, a new Indian Personal Data Protection Bill was released by a Committee of Experts formed under the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna (the “Bill”), accompanied by a report titled “A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians.” After several months’ hiatus, reports are emerging of renewed impetus from India’s Ministry

Knuddels GmbH & Co KG, a German social media app, has received the first administrative fine issued by a German supervisory authority under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The fine of € 20,000 has been levied on Knuddels by the Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information in Baden-Württemberg (one of 16 regional data protection authorities in Germany) following a hack reported by Knuddels in September which resulted in the personal data of approximately 330,000 users being stolen and subsequently published. Such personal data included users’ emails addresses and passwords.
Continue Reading

On October 4, 2018, the Financial Markets Law Committee (“FMLC”) published a paper on the subject of “Data Protection: Issues of Legal Uncertainty Arising from the UK Data Protection Act 2018.”  Cleary Gottlieb contributed to this paper as a participant in the FMLC’s data protection working group.

The FMLC’s paper focuses on issues of legal

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has provided Facebook with a Notice of Intent to issue a monetary penalty against the social media platform for its lack of transparency and failure to maintain the security of its users’ personal data in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The ICO’s fine is the maximum possible under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the UK implementing legislation for the former EU data protection regime under the Data Protection Directive). Facebook will have the opportunity to make representations to the ICO before the ICO’s decision is finalised.

Continue Reading

The consequences of a cybersecurity incident can be severe. The economic loss associated with an incident can often be compounded by reputational damage, loss of trade secrets, destruction of assets, operational impairment, lost revenue following the announcement of the cybersecurity incident and the expense of implementing remedial measures. The timing and content of any public communication about a suspected or confirmed cybersecurity incident can exacerbate this loss and have a significant impact on the trading price of the issuer’s securities.[1] The disclosure considerations become even more complex when a company is subject to overlapping, and potentially conflicting, regulatory obligations in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union (“EU”). This issue is now at the forefront with the EU’s new data security and privacy regime, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which became effective on May 25, 2018.

Continue Reading

Since the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016, considerable attention has focused on the vastly increased scope of potential administrative fines, and even more attention is being paid to the issue with the GDPR becoming effective on May 25, 2018.  In this post, we summarize the key fining provisions, and analyze the recent relevant guidance on this issue from the Article 29 Working Party (an advisory group consisting of representatives from national data protection authorities together with the European Commission).
Continue Reading

Following the generally positive assessment of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework (the “Privacy Shield”) by the European Commission further to its first annual review, the Article 29 Working Party (an advisory group consisting of representatives from national data protection authorities together with the European Commission), released its own opinion (the “WP29 Opinion”), which was

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) represents the biggest change to EU data protection law in more than twenty years. It has grabbed headlines as a result of its extra-territorial reach and the potentially vast fines for non-compliance.  (For a general overview of the GDPR, please refer to our Alert Memo.)   With the GDPR’s May 25, 2018 effective date rapidly approaching, the Article 29 Working Party (an advisory group made up of representatives from EU data protection authorities as well as the European Commission) recently published its latest wave of GDPR guidance.  In this post, we summarize both the prior guidance and the most recent update, which covers critical issues such as data breach notification requirements and the calculation of penalties for non-compliance.
Continue Reading