Understanding the practical implications of a “No Deal” Brexit (as compared to an exit under an approved Withdrawal Agreement) following last week’s vote against the current withdrawal proposal.
By Gail E. Crawford and Jane Bentham
“No Deal” Brexit
Unless the UK can agree on a deal with the EU that meets the approval of the majority of the UK Parliament, withdraws its Article 50 notice, or can negotiate with the EU an extension to the 29 March 2019 departure (Exit Date), the UK will leave the EU without a ratified Withdrawal Agreement or an agreed Political Declaration (together, the Deal). The political uncertainties around the different scenarios warrant that businesses prepare for a “No Deal” Brexit in all areas, including in relation to the processing of personal data.
Under a “No Deal” Brexit scenario, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will form part of UK domestic law as “retained EU law” as a result of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA), with certain amendments made to it and also to the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 under the (draft) Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (Privacy Exit Regulations), which is intended to come into force on the Exit Date. This is collectively being referred to as the “UK GDPR”. Continue Reading
Many sponsors of clinical trials believe that companies based outside the EU who sponsor clinical trials conducted in the EU through clinical research organisations (CROs) and/or clinical sites do not themselves need to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Sponsors believe the GDPR does not apply to them as they do not conduct the research directly but only receive results in key-coded form, and only their CROs and/or clinical sites will have access to the raw data and/or the key that connects the key-coded data to individual patients. However, sponsors need to reconsider this presumption in light of current guidelines and the Breyer case. Similar issues arise in other fields, for example, data and market research, in which only key-coded data is received by the organisation commissioning the research. But following the GDPR and the Breyer decision these organisations may still be subject to the requirements of the GDPR.
Long-awaited 
In November 2018, Germany’s first fine under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was imposed — and it was much lower than many expected. The favourable outcome of the proceedings for the defending company demonstrates that, with a proper defence strategy, GDPR infringements may not necessarily end in a worst-case scenario for companies.
Will societies of the future be ruled by algocracy, in which algorithms decide how humans are governed? Charles Randell, Chair of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Payment Systems Regulator, addressed how to avoid this hypothetical scenario in a broad-ranging 
Businesses are preparing to oppose a California ballot measure that could impose new data privacy and security obligations, with the threat of significant civil liability for non-compliance. Signatures are being gathered to put the Consumer Right to Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CRPA Measure”) on the November 2018 California ballot. The CRPA Measure, introduced by two California citizens, claims to give California consumers an “effective way to control their personal information” by providing them with (1) a right to request certain information about what personal information covered businesses have collected and sold or disclosed within the last year and (2) the right to opt-out from having their personal information disclosed by a covered business. The initiative also provides multiple avenues for enforcement (private civil actions; attorney general or local prosecutor enforcement; and whistleblower actions).
