Search results for: gdpr

general data protection regulation GDPR

Companies subject to India’s new data protection law should assess practical implications.

By Gail Crawford, Fiona Maclean, Danielle van der Merwe, Kate Burrell, Bianca H. Lee, Alex Park, Irina Vasile, and Amy Smyth

The Indian parliament enacted India’s first comprehensive data protection law on 11 August 2023, namely the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (the DPDPA). The DPDPA will replace India’s existing patchwork of data protection rules[i] and is expected to trigger significant changes in how companies subject to Indian data protection laws process personal data. However, the law is not yet operational; no effective date has been established and there is no official timeline for the overall implementation. Stakeholders expect the law to come into force in a phased manner in the next six to 12 months, after:

  1. an independent agency responsible for enforcing the DPDPA — the Data Protection Board of India (the Data Protection Board) — is established; and
  2. the Indian government has framed the subordinate rules (which are expected to provide interpretative guidance on procedural steps and enforcement methodology).

The DPDPA is “umbrella” legislation, as it sets out only a high-level framework for India’s new data protection regime, with supplementary rules expected in due course. Though the new law is not yet operational, companies subject to the new law are advised to begin assessing potential practical implications at an early stage.

iStock_000038860070_Large-669x669

The amended PDPL diverges from international privacy laws in several areas, including personal data transfers, penalties, and breach notification.

By Brian A. Meenagh and Lucy Tucker

An amended version of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was published in the Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on April 7, 2023. The amended PDPL contains the same wide extra-territorial scope as the original PDPL. It applies to any processing of personal data that takes place in the Kingdom, and applies to the processing of personal data of individuals located in the Kingdom by organizations outside of the Kingdom.

The amended PDPL contains concepts and requirements similar to those in international privacy laws, such as the GDPR, including concepts, such as personal data, controllers and processors, data processing principles, certain data subject rights, and the requirement to maintain a record of processing activities. However, the PDPL diverges from international privacy laws in several important areas, notably in relation to transfers of personal data outside of the Kingdom and penalties for non-compliance.

general data protection regulation GDPR

By Ian Felstead, Gail Crawford, Serrin Turner, Tim Wybitul, and Hayley Pizzey[1]

The final decision of the Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC) in relation to the transfers of EU/EEA Facebook user data by Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (Meta Ireland) to its processor, Meta Platforms, Inc., in the US (the Transfers)[2] was published on 22 May 2023 (IDPC Decision).[3]

The IDPC found that the Transfers, made pursuant to Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), did not comply with Article 46(1) GDPR, as the SCCs together with the supplementary measures implemented “do not compensate for the deficiencies in US law in issue”. The IDPC also found that the Transfers could not be made pursuant to any of the derogations under Article 49(1) GDPR. In particular, the IDPC concluded that the “contractual necessity” derogation could not be relied on by Meta Ireland “to justify the systematic, bulk, repetitive and ongoing transfers to the US”.

In light of these conclusions, the IDPC made an order suspending the Transfers (the Suspension Order).

Stock-Images-Law-Courts-European-Court-of-Justice-Luxemboug-Court-of-European-Union-Law-Exterior

The court determined that mere infringement of the GDPR is insufficient for a damages claim, but that there is no minimum threshold for non-material damages.

By Tim Wybitul, Myria Saarinen, Isabelle Brams, Floriane Cruchet, Camille Dorval, Charlotte Guerin, Lara Nonninger, and Hayley Pizzey

In a recent judgment (Case C-300/21), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that mere infringement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is insufficient to claim compensation under Article 82, absent any material or non-material damage suffered by the individual. In relation to non-material damage, the CJEU rejected the concept of a minimum threshold level of damage or harm to the individual.

Article 82 of the GDPR states that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a GDPR infringement has the right to receive compensation.

The CJEU’s judgment has the potential to encourage non-material damages claims — whether individual or collective — as it is clear that there is no de minimis threshold for such damages. However, the judgment also holds that mere GDPR infringement is an insufficient basis for non-material damages and therefore the claimant must prove that they suffered damage — albeit not to a standard, European Union-wide minimal threshold. Therefore, the specific impact of this judgment will vary across Member States, depending on applicable domestic law underpinning non-material damages claims more broadly.

The CJEU’s final ruling could subject companies to direct GDPR enforcement by DPAs notwithstanding national procedural rules, but may rule against strict liability under the GDPR.

By Tim Wybitul, Myria Saarinen, Isabelle Brams, Irina Vasile, and Amy Smyth

On 27 April 2023 Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered an opinion in which he approved direct enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) against companies but rejected…

The Advocate General opined that data subjects must prove that they suffered damage from a GDPR breach in order to claim compensation.

By Tim Wybitul, Isabelle Brams, Lara Nonninger, and Hayley Pizzey

Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) states that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a GDPR infringement has the right to receive compensation. The meaning of non-material damage, in particular, has been debated for some time. Some European courts have been generous in assessing non-material damages to claimants. A number of German courts, for example, have found that loss of control of personal data can amount to damage.[1] A series of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) also question, among other things, whether damage — or proof of damage — is required at all under Article 82 GDPR.[2]

The EDPB sets out relevant steps and factors that EU supervisory authorities should consider when calculating administrative fines under the GDPR.

By Gail Crawford, Ian Felstead, James Lloyd, Tim Wybitul, Irina Vasile, Sami Qureshi, and Amy Smyth

On 16 May 2022, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted draft Guidelines 04/2022 on the calculation of administrative fines under the GDPR (Draft Guidelines).[1] The Draft Guidelines are currently subject to public consultation and comments may be submitted until 27 June 2022 (at the latest). The EDPB’s aim is to create a harmonised methodology for the calculation of GDPR fines. All EU supervisory authorities (SAs) must use the same starting points, on the basis of which administrative fines can be subsequently calculated and further tailored for individual cases. The EDPB clearly emphasizes that the Draft Guidelines are not drafted to enable controllers/processors to precisely calculate the expected fine; this determination will rather depend on all the individual circumstances of the case. SAs will need to ensure that fines are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, taking into account the particularities of each case. While the EDPB acknowledges that SAs retain discretion to account for these particularities, they are clearly expected to follow the methodology set out in the Draft Guidelines.

The CJEU’s decision is likely to have significant implications for ongoing and future proceedings for damages claims under Art. 82 GDPR.

By Tim Wybitul, Christoph Baus, Stefan Patzer, and Isabelle Brams

On April 15, 2021, the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) referred key questions regarding non-material damages for data protection infringements under Art. 82 GDPR to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU. So far, a number of claims for non-material damages based on violations of the GDPR have been dismissed by the courts in Austria and Germany because the plaintiffs did not allege or prove any noticeable immaterial impairment. The OGH makes reference to a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) dated January 14, 2021 in which the court overturned a decision by the Goslar Local Court (AG). The BVerfG ruled that the AG would have had submit significant questions about damages to the CJEU before making a decision in the final instance. Whilst the OGH disagreed with the finding of the BVerfG, it considered it helpful to refer question to the CJEU in order to ensure a harmonized application of the law within the EU.

The decision means the CJEU will need to clarify the framework for GDPR damages claims.

By Tim Wybitul, Dr. Christoph Baus, and Dr. Isabelle Brams

The German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) needs to clarify if the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for a materiality threshold for GDPR damage claims. The decision overturns a judgment of the Goslar Local Court of 27 September 2019 regarding the unlawful sending of an advertising email.

Latham lawyers explain who the DIFC’s new law applies to and how it maps against the GDPR.

By Brian A. Meenagh, Fiona M. Maclean, Alexander Hendry, and Avinash Balendran

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) recently issued a new data protection law and regulations: the Data Protection Law DIFC Law No. 5 of 2020 and the Data Protection Regulations (together, the DIFC DP Legislation).  The new law, which became effective on 1 July 2020, sets a significant benchmark for data privacy in the Middle East and aligns the DIFC’s data protection framework with international data protection regulations, including the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).