Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...
By Jimmy H. Koo
Aug. 3 — U.S. companies considering enlisting in the recently opened European Union-U.S. Privacy Shield data transfer program must ensure their privacy policies meet more robust data protection requirements than the predecessor U.S.-EU Safe Harbor program.
The most significant changes are new requirements around onward transfers, notice and novel recourse and verification mechanisms, privacy attorneys and professionals told Bloomberg BNA.
The Privacy Shield—for which the U.S. Department of Commerce began taking applications Aug. 1—may provide cost effective data transfer solutions for some U.S. companies, but it should be part of a larger portfolio of data transfer mechanisms, the privacy pros said.
EU and U.S. officials approved July 12 the new trans-Atlantic data transfer pact (15 PVLR 1478, 7/18/16). The Privacy Shield is the much anticipated replacement for the defunct Safe Harbor Program, which was invalidated by the ECJ in October 2015 on the basis that it failed to sufficiently protect to the privacy of EU data subjects (14 PVLR 1825, 10/12/15).
Unlike the Safe Harbor, the Privacy Shield “has teeth,” Tanya Forsheit, partner and co-chair of the Privacy & Data Security group at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in Los Angeles, told Bloomberg BNA.
The Privacy Shield requires adherence to seven primary principles:
The principles aren't different than the Safe Harbor, but now companies should be making “a serious commitment,” Forsheit said. Enforcement authorities will be watching, and companies must have recourse mechanisms built into their privacy framework, she said.
Gabe Maldoff, Westin Fellow at the International Association of Privacy Professionals, told Bloomberg BNA that to obtain Privacy Shield certification, organizations are required to implement processes for handling complaints and verifying adherence to the Privacy Shield Principles. Companies may choose from various independent recourse mechanisms that give consumers access to effective remedies in the case of a violation, including third party dispute resolution bodies located in the U.S. or in the EU, or a panel of EU Data Protection Authorities, Maldoff said.
San Francisco-based data privacy management company TRUSTe, for example, can serve as the independent recourse mechanism, TRUSTe Chief Executive Officer Chris Babel told Bloomberg BNA. “TRUSTe recently updated its certification standards to align with the Privacy Shield Principles, and is helping companies assess their privacy practices and policies in preparation for self-certification with the Department of Commerce,” he said.
Babel said that “broadly speaking, there are two categories of information that a company needs to provide in their privacy statement: information concerning how they handle data and information regarding consumer’s redress and enforcement options.” Companies must identify the types of personal data collected, the purpose for which it was collected, third parities to which the information is disclosed and why, he said.
Maldoff said that “beyond what was required by Safe Harbor, organizations will have to state their commitment to adhere to the Privacy Shield along with the rights and remedies available to consumers, such as rights of access, recourse mechanisms, arbitration and Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction.”
For companies that participated in the invalidated Safe Harbor program, migration to the Privacy Shield framework shouldn't be difficult and may provide “business flexibility and expediency,” James H. Koenig, of counsel in the Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Paul Hastings in New York, and Brent Hoard, director in the Privacy & Cybersecurity practice at Paul Hastings in New York, told Bloomberg BNA. The Privacy Shield provides blanket approval of data transfers and acts as a “compliance catch-all,” they said.
However, participation in the Privacy Shield framework isn't a must-do for all companies and organizations, Koenig and Hoard said. Companies should utilize the Privacy Shield framework as a part of their portfolio of data transfer mechanisms, including standard contractual clauses and model contracts, they said.
Following the invalidation of the Safe Harbor and before the finalization of the Privacy Shield, many companies used model contracts and are still using them, Koenig and Hoard said. For many companies, continuing to use model contracts may be “practical,” they said.
Forsheit said that self-certifying under the Privacy Shield is “not a necessity” for all companies as other mechanisms remain legal. Another option for companies is using binding corporate rules, Forsheit said. However, binding corporate rules may be time-intensive to create and companies have to obtain approval from data protection authorities, she said.
Koenig and Hoard said that although the Privacy Shield may have costs, it does have its benefits.
In the long run, using model contracts becomes too expensive to maintain, they said. Privacy Shield is a “cost effective alternative,” Koenig and Hoard said.
Forsheit said that companies that decide to participate in the Privacy Shield should first designate someone to be in charge of ensuring compliance and to “drive the program” before self-certifying.
“You have to implement before verifying,” she said. Although the person or the department in charge may depend on the organization, she said, tapping someone in the c-suite is desirable. “This demonstrates the company's accountability,” Forsheit said.
Babel advised companies to make sure they have “properly inventoried and assessed” their privacy policies and practices. “Once you are confident that your internal practices are in order, making sure that these practices are sufficiently and clearly expressed in your consumer-facing privacy statement will be essential,” Babel said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jimmy H. Koo in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)