Introducing Safe Harbour 2.0: the EU-US Privacy Shield
Introducing Safe Harbour 2.0: the EU-US Privacy Shield
The EU Commission recently announced that it had come to an agreement with the US on a new framework to facilitate data flows. This announcement follows the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner invalidating the traditional safe-harbour principles. Click here to view our earlier bulletin on the Schrems decision.
The effect of the CJEU’s decision in Schrems was to invalidate the safe harbour principles on which companies used to rely to transfer personal data from the European Union (EU) to the United States (US). The CJEU was of the view that the revelations by Edward Snowden demonstrated a broad and indiscriminate lawful access regime in the US that is incompatible with EU data protection laws. The EU Data Protection Directive requires that information being transferred outside of the EU maintain an adequate level of protection as compared to the safeguards that exist under EU law. In Schrems the CJEU reasoned that the ability of public agencies to apply broad surveillance frustrates the ability of businesses to provide meaningful data protection assurances with respect to data transferred into the United States. Therefore, the CJEU found that the safe harbour regime could not protect personal information transferred from the EU to the US. The Schrems decision created great uncertainty for a number of businesses, since the global nature of business in today’s marketplace often requires the transfer of data between the EU and the US.
The Proposed Solution
The EU Commission recently issued a press release indicating that it had come to an agreement with the US on a new framework for transatlantic data flows that is consistent with the CJEU’s requirements in Schrems. The press release refers to the agreement as the “EU-US Privacy Shield”.
The EU-US Privacy Shield calls for increased cooperation between the European Data Protection Authorities and the US Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission. The arrangement includes a commitment by US authorities that the possibility of lawful access will be subject to greater limitations and oversight. The arrangement will require:
- Greater obligations on companies handling personal information from the EU;
- Increased safeguards and transparency regarding US lawful access; and
- Recourse mechanisms for EU citizens whose data has been mishandled.
The EU-US Privacy Shield has not yet come into force. A draft “adequacy decision” is currently being prepared for approval by the College of Commissioners of the EU.
Implications for Canadians
The announcement of the EU-US Privacy Shield is an important development. Firstly, the EU-US Privacy Shield will provide Canadian businesses that transfer data between the EU and the US with an approved mechanism to do so.
In addition, while the EU Commission has previously found that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) provides adequate protection for personal information, the EU data protection regime is rapidly developing. It is conceivable that Canada’s data protection regime will fall out of sync with the EU’s and that a similar decision to Schrems could complicate transfers of EU data into Canada. The announcement of the EU-US Privacy Shield demonstrates some flexibility on the part of the EU, and may provide a precedent for an alternate form of arrangement if PIPEDA’s adequacy is ever challenged in the future.
by Mitch Koczerginski and Lyndsay Wasser
 2002/2/EC: Commission Decision of 20 December 2001 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data provided by the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (notified under document number C(2001) 4539).
A Cautionary Note
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2016
Related Publications (5 Posts)
McMillan’s Vancouver Labour and Employment Group is proud to launch it’s first ever Breakfast Series covering key employment and human rights issues!
Join members of the Marketing and Advertising Group on Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 12 pm ET as we discuss current trends in marketing and advertising in an increasingly virtual world, and during the ongoing global pandemic.
Ontario’s new On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation, O. Reg 406/19 may impact existing and future construction contracts
The Alberta Court of Appeal's dismissal of Bellatrix's appeal leaves substantial uncertainty for natural gas market and all derivatives counterparties.
Federal Procurement Update #1: Filing a Complaint at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal: A Sprint Rather than a Marathon
A review of when and how to file a federal procurement complaint to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT)
Get updates delivered right to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.