These FAQs answer some basic questions on Privacy Shield. We use some technical terms which are explained in our glossary here – http://www.corderycompliance.com/eu-data-protection-regulation-glossary/. If you would like detailed advice on Privacy Shield we are happy to help – our contact details are at the end of these FAQs.
What is Privacy Shield?
The Privacy Shield scheme was proposed in February 2016 to replace the Safe Harbor scheme which was struck down by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the first Schrems case (sometimes known as Schrems 1) in October 2015. There is some background to the collapse of Safe Harbor and the announcement of Privacy Shield in our alert on 3 February 2016 here – http://www.corderycompliance.com/safe-harbor-safe/.
Why did it take so long?
As we said in February 2016 the announcement of the creation of Privacy Shield was premature. An announcement had to be made in February 2016 as a deadline set by the Article 29 Working Party (often known as WP29) had expired at the end of January 2016. In February 2016 the European Commission said that they hoped that Privacy Shield would be finalised by the beginning of May 2016. Even that seemed ambitious in part because of the criticism that Privacy Shield received from WP29 in April 2016. You can see a summary of WP29’s criticisms of Privacy Shield in our alert and short film here – http://www.corderycompliance.com/wp29-refuse-to-endorse-privacy-shield-scheme/.
When did Privacy Shield come in?
The scheme opened for business on 1 August 2016.
Who has joined so far?
More than 2400 companies have joined Privacy Shield. They include Ernst & Young, Facebook (for non HR data only), Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Rackspace, Salesforce, ServiceNow, St Jude Medical and Workday.
If I join Privacy Shield will the US authorities play a greater role?
Almost certainly. There is likely to be much more supervision by the US authorities than there was under Safe Harbor. It is not true to say there was no Safe Harbor enforcement (for example we looked at the investigation into TRUSTe here http://www.corderycompliance.com/further-safe-harbor-enforcement-from-the-federal-trade-commission/) but the European Commission are promising tougher enforcement. The Commission said on this in their 12 July 2016 announcement:
“under the new arrangement, the U.S. Department of Commerce will conduct regular updates and reviews of participating companies, to ensure that companies follow the rules they submitted themselves to. If companies do not comply in practice they face sanctions and removal from the list.”
Is Privacy Shield bullet proof?
Probably not. Penny Pritzker, the former US State Secretary of Commerce, said on 12 July 2016 in announcing the deal that she thought it would ‘withstand scrutiny’ and that she had been speaking with the chair of WP29 to try and reduce her concerns. Commissioner Jourová also said she was confident it would survive a court challenge. In our view it is unlikely that the concerns about Privacy Shield will disappear so quickly. We talked about the challenges to Privacy Shield when we spoke with Max Schrems on 21 October 2016. You can find a summary of that interview here – http://www.corderycompliance.com/interview-with-max-schrems/. Max Schrems said in that interview “Privacy Shield is Safe Harbor with flowers on it – it will probably be killed by the European Court”.
The successful challenge to the EU – Canada PNR data sharing agreement in July 2017 would suggest that the ECJ’s position has not changed too much since the original Schrems decision.
As well as possible challenges from courts and regulators it should be remembered that Privacy Shield had a one-year shelf-life. The European Commission, perhaps not unsurprisingly, gave a qualified pass on its first review. WP29 were more critical announcing the results of their first review on the 1 December 2017. WP29 said that it had identified “a number of significant concerns” and called upon the European Commission and the relevant authorities in the US to restart discussions. They say that these concerns must be resolved by 25 May 2018 when GDPR comes in. They say that if that does not happen members of WP29 will take appropriate action, including bringing the Privacy Shield adequacy decision to courts in Member States asking them to make a reference to the ECJ in the same way as the first Schrems case was referred by the Irish courts.
. The European Parliament in particular is likely to be looking carefully at the scheme’s first year. In July 2017 Claude Moraes the Chair of the European Parliament Committee looking at the Privacy Shield annual review said: “Deficiencies still remain and must be urgently resolved to ensure that the Privacy Shield does not suffer from critical weaknesses”. WP29 have also indicated that the first annual review, which started in February 2017 will be a critical time for Privacy Shield.
Could it be challenged by Regulators?
Almost certainly. Reports in August 2016 suggest that Johannes Caspar, the Hamburg Data Protection Regulator who had been very critical of Safe Harbor would like to refer to the scheme to the ECJ. Caspar has petitioned the Germany authorities to allow data protection regulators to refer issues like this to the ECJ directly.
In November 2016 ten German data protection authorities announced that they had sent a survey to 500 organisations asking for details of their data protection strategy. Around 150 of these questionnaires were sent by the Bavarian Data Protection Commissioner. Initially the businesses had been sent a questionnaire for them to complete and return to the relevant regulator. The document asks specific questions about the business’ use of Privacy Shield and other methods of dealing with international data transfer. Additionally the questionnaire asks for details of specific data transfers to the USA including in areas like helpdesk support, travel management, CRM, marketing, recruitment, collaboration platforms, quality management and cloud.
In addition there are rumours that Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovenia abstained from the Article 31 vote and it could be that Regulators from some of those countries may also take an interest, although as time passes this makes an immediate challenge less likely. Privacy Shield is certainly open to challenge in the same way as Safe Harbor was. In effect its legal status is similar to Safe Harbor – an adequacy finding from the European Commission.
What about a court challenge?
Privacy Shield faces several court challenges and the Schrems 1 case tells us that Regulators must have more independence to investigate their concerns.
In addition there is currently a challenge to the courts over model clauses. We reported on this case, here http://www.corderycompliance.com/ireland-to-refer-schrems-matter-to-european-court-for-legal-clarity-about-model-clauses/ sometimes known as Schrems 3, in May 2016. This case has also now been referred to the ECJ. The Schrems 2 litigation is not immediately relevant to Privacy Shield but you can find background on that case here – http://www.corderycompliance.com/schrems-class-action-to-continue/. The Schrems 2 litigation is also now heading for the ECJ.
One of the cases against Privacy Shield, brought by Digital Rights Ireland, now seems to have been dismissed as Digital Rights Ireland were held not to have sufficient standing before the court where those proceedings were issued.. An additional case was brought to the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg by La Quadrature du Net, a Paris based pressure group, the French Data Network and FDN Federation. The French associations’ claim in their case that Privacy Shield should be struck down because it violates their fundamental rights. Both the Irish group and the French groups will have to persuade the Court that they have sufficient standing to challenge the European Commission’s decision giving birth to Privacy Shield. The rules on standing are quite complicated and it is by no means certain that they will be able to persuade the Court that they have the standing to bring the case. The French groups’ may have the same issue as the Irish litigation – they will have to persuade the court that they have sufficient standing to challenge the European Commission giving birth to Privacy Shield.
Whilst a challenge does seem likely there is no guarantee that would succeed. A differently constituted court on a different day may be more willing to uphold Privacy Shield especially with the extra effort that both the EU and US have made this time around. Whatever the result however there is likely to be uncertainty since a court hearing may be unlikely before the end of 2018 on current court timetables.
Will Privacy Shield be protected by GDPR?
No. Privacy Shield is not referred to in GDPR although one of the other methods of data transfer, Binding Corporate Rules (or BCRs) is. Commissioner Jourová said on 12 July 2016 that Privacy Shield would be reviewed prior to GDPR coming into force since it was a clear requirement that the US had ‘equivalent’ protection and this protection was likely to have to be improved once GDPR set the bar higher.
Should I even consider Privacy Shield for my business?
Possibly. Despite its faults those companies who were in Safe Harbor might find Privacy Shield fairly easy to achieve. It could have some role as part of a mix of compliance measures, although it is unlikely to provide a complete solution on its own. It would be wise for those considering the scheme to do a cost-benefit analysis. Privacy Shield is likely to be more costly than Safe Harbor – in part due to higher arbitration costs – but may demonstrate a level of compliance to some of your customers. Some of the former Safe Harbor arbitration schemes have also adapted themselves to manage Privacy Shield arbitrations.
Are there any deadlines?
No but there were concessions for businesses that signed up to Privacy Shield before the end of September 2016. That concessionary period, which applied to existing onward transfers of data, has now ended.
How much will it cost to join Privacy Shield?
As well as the arbitration scheme cost an organisation must pay an annual fee to the US Department of Commerce (DoC). That fee is tiered based on the organization’s annual revenue and ranges from $250 to $3,250. Additionally there is a fall-back arbitration scheme which will be funded by a levy on Privacy Shield participants.
What about Brexit?
There was a question at the 12 July 2016 press conference to Commissioner Jourová about the affects of Brexit and any likely adequacy decision for the UK. Commissioner Jourová said it was too early to answer this question.
Due to the initial two year time frame for the Brexit negotiations, Privacy Shield will apply to data transfers from the UK at least until any eventual withdrawal from the EU – this is unlikely to be much earlier than April 2019. Equally GDPR will also apply. There is more information on the affects of Brexit on data protection, data transfer and data security in our film here – www.bit.ly/brexfilm.
What about Swiss transfers?
A similar Privacy Shield scheme for transfers from Switzerland has been operational from April 2017. Details are here: http://www.corderycompliance.com/client-alert-new-privacy-shield-scheme-in-switzerland/.
What can I do?
In short to get started, the following are possible actions to take:
- Have a plan for data transfer – we have seen from some of the enforcement cases that the lack of a plan is likely to cause difficulties when regulators ask questions;
- Review Privacy Shield to see if it might work for you – even a system subject to a challenge may be useful for you;
- Look again at your data flows to determine the following: what information travels outside of the EU and on what basis? Is it inter-group or is it to third parties? What steps are already in place to make those data flows lawful? You may be able to alter your current data practices to reduce your risk;
- Consider the other options available to your business including model clauses (recognizing they are also subject to challenge) and BCRs. BCRs do have a new footing in GDPR and may be more resistant to challenge. BCRs will not be the answer for everyone however;
For more information please contact Jonathan or André who are lawyers with Cordery in London where their focus is on compliance issues.
Office: +44 (0)207 075 1784
Office: +44 (0)207 075 1785