In a few words, a fair cross-border procedure to bring personal data outside the Economic European Area to third countries, needs the adoption of the measures exhaustively listed in 95/46/CE Directive: one of them was Safe Harbor, (as adequacy decision of the European Commission) – http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/international-transfers/adequacy/index_en.htm – struck down by Court of Justice of […]
A California law [1] that went into effect January 1, 2016 aims to protect the privacy of consumers who may be unaware of the extent to which the “internet of things” has invaded their living rooms or bedrooms. Assembly Bill 1116 targets smart televisions that have voice recognition features, and requires manufacturers of those TVs to […]
What’s this all about? As you will be well aware, the European Court ruled in the Schrems case last autumn 2014 that the EU US Safe Harbor Decision was invalid (see here for our earlier alert and a short film update). The EU and the US have been in discussion to try and agree a “Safe Harbor […]
Introduction Developments following the European Court’s 6 October 2015 Schrems ruling that declared data transfers under Safe Harbor invalid continue apace with the publication of an official 16-page Communication from the European Commission of 6 November. Please refer to our main alert for the background and our comments (including 3 videos) on the Schrems judgment and its consequences along with […]
The vast difference between the views of privacy held in the US and in the EU is illustrated by the divergent paths of two prominent data privacy actions. In the EU, the action was brought by Max Schrems as a complaint before the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, claiming that Facebook’s transfer of user data to […]
The Portuguese Data Protection Authority (CNPD) published today its decision regarding the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision to invalidate Safe Harbor. Summing up, the CNPD: prohibits data transfers to the US under Safe Harbor, executing CJEU’s decision; will only issue provisional authorizations for data transfers to the US using mecanisms other than […]
Read Part One II. Candor F.R.C.P. 26(g) has its own Rule-11-type signature provision for discovery requests, responses and objections. If the certification of truthfulness, completeness, and propriety in law and fact violates the rule “without substantial justification,” the court is required to impose “an appropriate sanction” on counsel, the represented party, or both. Additional requirements […]
E-discovery is inseparable from the issue of ethics. Because lawyer duties and requirements permeate the realm of e-discovery, they invariably implicate lawyers’ ethical duties. This is illustrated by the fact that the most notorious e-discovery cases are ones where lawyers are heavily sanctioned – including referral to a state bar for disciplinary proceedings. This article […]
The Weltimmo decision issued by the European Court of Justice on October 1, 2015 is probably one of the most important decisions on processing of data. It is so for three reasons. First, it defines the “establishment” in the most peculiar way, which has consequences in point of application of national data protection of the […]
On September 23, Advocate General Yves Bot at the European Court of Justice (“AG”) released his Opinion in C-362/14 (Maximilian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner). Waiting for the decision of the European Court of Justice – expected on October 6 – and keeping in mind that the Court follows the Advocate General’s opinions 80% of […]