United States: The EU – US data privacy framework and the impact on companies in the European Economic Area and USA compared to other international data transfer mechanisms

In brief

Third time's a charm? Companies in the European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland, and the UK (EEA+) are considering the pros and cons of the third attempt of the EU Commission and US government to establish interoperability between their data protection and privacy law systems after the demise of the US Safe Harbor Program and the EU–US Privacy Shield. Should US companies register? Are the efforts worth the potential benefits, given that the new programme has already been challenged and may be invalidated like previous programmes for reasons that businesses cannot control? Should companies that were already enrolled in the previous programmes accept automatic enrolment or leave the programme? Can and should companies in the EEA+ rely on EU–US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) registration for international transfers? Or insist on registration in addition to standard contractual clauses (EU SCC 2021) or other compliance mechanisms? Are data transfer impact assessments (DTIAs) still required for transfers to the US? Should they be updated?


Contents

Read the full article here

*Copyright Henry Stewart Publications reproduced with permission: Volume 6 (2023-24) | Henry Stewart Publications
 


Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.