Sponsors outside the European Union conducting clinical trials in the EU should consider current guidelines and the Breyer case to understand whether GDPR requirements will apply to them.
By Gail Crawford and Frances Stocks Allen
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.
Is Key-Coded Data Personal Data?
The GDPR defines “personal data” broadly to include any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. For this purpose, an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier, or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of that natural person (Article 4(1) GDPR). Continue Reading
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).
