EU Commission sends draft EU General Data Protection Regulation and Directive on Criminal Investigations and Judicial Proceedings to the European Parliament

This post was written by Cynthia O'Donoghue and Nick Tyler

The European Commission today completed its task of reforming the EU Data Protection Directive by sending a draft Regulation to the European Parliament. The draft Regulation contains comprehensive reforms and seeks to harmonise data protection laws across the 27 EU Member States, and to enhance EU citizens' privacy protections in the age of the Internet.

There will be two tiers of compliance obligations and sanctions, with one aimed at small- to medium-sized enterprises and the other at large, multinational organizations. SMEs are entitled to certain exemptions to ease administrative burdens, such as no requirement to appoint a data protection officer and a sanctions cap of up to €1 million. Multinationals with more than 250 employees in the EU will have to appoint a data protection officer and may face sanctions of up to 2 percent of worldwide annual turnover for serious breaches. Multinationals outside the EU will also have to comply with the data protection rules if they seek to market products and services to the EU citizens.

Key provisions include:

A single notification to the data protection authority in the country where an organization has its principle establishment. There remains an obligation to notify and seek prior authorization for a range of processing activity considered to present specific risks, such as systematic and extensive profiling and large-scale video surveillance.

Accountability principle for those processing personal data, including impact assessments for SMEs and top-down accountability for all organisations.

Data breach notification to the national data protection authority if feasible within 24 hours, and to individuals if there is a risk of harm.

Increased individual control over their data includes seeking their explicit consent before data may be processed rather than it being assumed, and their ability to refer matters to the data protection authority in their country even if data is processed by a company based outside the EU.

Data Portability will mean that individuals will have easier access to their own data and be able to transfer it from one service provider to another more easily.

A right to be forgotten allows individuals, including children, the ability to delete their data if an organization does not have any legitimate grounds for retaining it. The right provides exemptions for legitimate historic data such as newspaper archives, and seeks to balance the right to privacy with the right to free speech.

The sanction regime has at least been watered down from the draft Regulation circulated in November 2011, which had proposed sanctions of up to 5 percent of worldwide annual turnover.

There have been some ‘business-friendly’ changes to the draft Regulation as compared with the earlier November draft. The proposal for an opt-in for commercial marketing has been substituted with an opt-out, and the provisions relating to children’s privacy now requires parental consent for under the age of 13, rather than 18.
In addition, while there is an emphasis on binding corporate rules for international data transfers outside of the EU, contractual clauses, EU standard contracts, and findings of adequacy, as well as international commitments by countries or international organizations such as U.S. Safe Harbor, will still apply. Given the changes contemplated under the draft Regulation, existing international data transfer mechanisms may need to be reviewed and amended if the draft Regulation is adopted.
The new European Data Protection Board will no longer act as a supernational regulator in relation to approving enforcement actions and sanctions as proposed in the November version of the draft Regulation. Instead, its powers will be limited to ensuring consistent application of the Regulation without the power to overrule decisions in individual cases.
The Commission's proposed draft Regulation and accompanying Directive now goes to the European Parliament and EU Member States (meeting in the Council of Ministers) for discussion. The Regulation will only take effect two years after adoption by the European Parliament, and we would expect further changes as it makes its way through the legislative process. That means any changes are probably close to three years down the road.
 

Connecticut's Muscular New Vision for Government Oversight of Data Security Breach Notifications

This post was written by Diane Bettino and Paul Bond.

Nearly every state in the U.S. has a statute requiring notifications upon discovery of a data security breach.  Most of these laws do not mandate notification to any state authority. T hose few state laws that compel governmental notice are usually satisfied with contemporaneous notice, or notice after the fact.

That all may change, at least for entities licensed or directly regulated by state agencies.  The State of Connecticut’s Department of Insurance has issued a bulletin, Bulletin IC-25.

Bulletin IC-25 envisions a much more active government role whenever a company licensed or regulated by the Department has an “information security incident”.  This Bulletin applies to a variety of regulated entities, from insurers to appraisers, from bail bond agents to pharmacy benefit managers to medical discount plans.

The Bulletin requires that the business send notice of an “information security incident” no later than five calendar days after the incident is identified.  As businesses who have suffered from data security breaches know, it will often take more than five calendar days to know even the basics about a potential incident.

This lightening-quick notification to the Department should include as much as possible about 15 categories of information, including the results of internal reviews and copies of the business’s privacy policies and data breach policies.  If regulated companies did not have adequate incentive to have such policies in place before, they surely do now.

“The Department will want to review, in draft form, any communications proposed to be made” regarding the breach.  Additionally, “depending on the type of incident and information involved, the Department will also want to have discussions regarding the level of credit monitoring and insurance protection which the Department will require to be offered to affected consumers and for what period of time” (emphasis added).  Businesses used to drafting their own communications and selecting their own remedies to offer will now be negotiating those points post-breach with a government agency.

In addition, the Department will set up a “monitoring process,” unique to each incident, to keep abreast of “activities associated with any information security incident”.

It remains to be seen whether other state regulatory agencies adopt a similar approach.  However, for those who fall under the ambit of this Bulletin, it represents a sea change in the allocation of authority between government and business in the period between breach and notification.