LAWFLASH
EUROPEAN COMMISSION RELEASES
DETAILS OF NEW EU-US PRIVACY SHIELD
March 02, 2016
AUTHORS AND CONTACTS
Dr. Axel Spies, Gregory T. Parks, Mark L. Krotoski, Pulina Whitaker, Matthew Howse, W.
Reece
Hirsch
The new EU-US Privacy Shield seeks to address the European Court of Justice’s criticisms in Schrems after
the decision invalidated the Safe Harbor program for EU-US data transfers.
On February 29, the EU Commission released the Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision, four weeks after
the initial announcement of the EU-US Privacy Shield, which has been put forth as the replacement for the
invalidated Safe Harbor program that previously governed transfers of personal data between the European
Union and the United States.[1]
As expected, the European Commission has attempted to tighten up the information governance
obligations for US companies that import personal data from Europe following the European Court of
Justice's criticisms of the now invalid Safe Harbor program in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection
Commissioner in October 2015.[2]
This LawFlash provides an overview of the draft EU-US Privacy Shield and next steps for its adoption.
PRIVACY SHIELD LIST AND PRINCIPLES
Similar to the Safe Harbor, the US Department of Commerce will maintain and make available to the
public an authoritative list of US organizations (Privacy Shield List) that have self-certiï¬ed to the
department and declared their commitment to adhere to the Privacy Shield Principles.
The EU-US Privacy Shield is premised upon the Privacy Shield Principles issued by the US Department of
Commerce: notice, choice, accountability of onward transfers, data security, data integrity, purpose
limitation, data access, recourse, enforcement, and liability. These principles are similar to the
commitments of data importers under the Safe Harbor, but the necessary disclosures for each are much
more detailed.
US data importers must commit to employ effective mechanisms for assuring compliance with the
Privacy Shield Principles.
In particular, they must
provide recourse for individuals who are the subjects of the data,
. implement follow-up procedures for verifying that the attestations and assertions they have made
about their privacy practices are true, and
remedy problems arising from a failure to comply with the Privacy Shield Principles.
A data importer commits to cooperate with the EU Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) by declaring in
its Privacy Shield self-certiï¬cation submission to the Department of Commerce that the organization
adheres to the Privacy Shield Recourse, Enforcement and Liability Principles by committing to cooperate
with the DPAs, including during investigations to resolve complaints. Speciï¬cally, a data importer must
agree that it “will comply with any advice given by the DPAs where the DPAs take the view that the
organization needs to take speciï¬c action to comply with the Privacy Shield Principles, including
remedial or compensatory measures for the beneï¬t of individuals affected by any non-compliance with
the Principles, and will provide the DPAs with written conï¬rmation that such action has been taken.”
It is unclear at this time whether this commitment goes beyond the cooperation commitments that
existed under the Safe Harbor.
A data importer that self-certiï¬es to join the Privacy Shield List to cover EU human resources data
transferred in the context of the employment relationship must commit to cooperate with the DPAs
with regard to such data.
While the Department of Commerce will publicly “name and shame” US companies that are not in
compliance with the commitments under the EU-US Privacy Shield, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
and other US agencies will likely enforce the obligations more vigorously than they did under Safe
Harbor.
NEW AVENUES FOR LEGAL REDRESS
Data subjects will be able to lodge complaints under the EU-US Privacy Shield with the companies and with
the relevant DPA:
With the company
Complaints by the data subjects must be resolved by companies within 45 days.
To resolve a dispute, a no-cost Alternative Dispute Resolution solution will be available.
With a DPA
If the EU data subjects ï¬le a complaint with their national DPA, the DPA will then contact the FTC to
ensure that unresolved complaints by EU citizens are investigated and resolved.
As a last resort, there will be an arbitration mechanism to help ensure an enforceable remedy. Moreover,
data importers must commit to comply with advice from European DPAs. This is obligatory for
companies handling human resource data.
PRIVACY SHIELD OMBUDSPERSON CREATED FOR US STATE DEPARTMENT
A letter from US Secretary of State John Kerry describes the role of the new Privacy Shield Ombudsperson
at the US State Department.
The Privacy Shield Ombudsperson will work closely with “other United States
. Government officials, including appropriate independent oversight bodies, to ensure that completed
requests are processed and resolved in accordance with applicable laws and policies.” It is intended that the
ombudsperson will coordinate national security access to data transmitted from the European Union to the
United States pursuant to the EU-US Privacy Shield, standard contractual clauses (SCCs), and binding
corporate rules (BCRs).
NEXT STEPS
The adoption process will likely take several weeks, if not months, and the EU Parliament will play an active
role in the process. Next steps will include the following:
An EU committee composed of representatives of the EU Member States (the College) will be consulted.
EU Data Protection Authorities (Article 29 Working Party) will give their opinion, before a ï¬nal decision
by the College.
The EU Commission will vote on the “adequacy” of the EU-US Privacy Shield.
The European Commission has, in conjunction with US authorities, attempted to address the potential
data privacy breach issues arising in the context of US authorities accessing European personal data. This
issue was a key aspect of the Schrems decision, and is the most likely basis for any future challenge to the
validity of the EU-US Privacy Shield. The next step will likely be an opinion from the Article 29 Working
Party on the Privacy Shield Principles.
CONTACTS
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please
contact any of the following Morgan Lewis lawyers:
Washington, D.C.
Axel Spies
Ronald W.
Del Sesto
Silicon Valley
Mark L. Krotoski
San Francisco
W. Reece Hirsch
Philadelphia
Gregory T.
Parks
London
Pulina Whitaker
Matthew Howse
Lee Harding
[1] See our February 2016 LawFlash “EU-US Privacy Shield to Replace Safe Harbor.”
. [2] See our October 2015 LawFlash “EJC Rules EU-US Safe Harbor Programme Is Invalid.”
Copyright 2016 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | All rights reserved
.