On December 10, 2019, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published the final version of its standard (“Referential”) concerning the processing of personal data in the context of whistleblowing hotlines. The Referential on whistleblowing hotlines was adopted following a public consultation launched by the CNIL on April 11, 2019. It replaces the CNIL’s Single Authorization AU-004 decision regarding such data processing, and anticipates certain changes introduced by the EU Directive on the protection of whistleblowers (Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of October 23, 2019), which EU Member States will have to implement into their national laws by December 17, 2021. The CNIL also published a set of questions and answers (“FAQs”), which aim to answer some practical questions that the CNIL are regularly asked regarding the operation of a whistleblowing hotline.
Background
Following the 2018 update to the French Data Protection Act in light of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), the CNIL was granted the power to issue Referentials. These Referentials are not compulsory; they are mainly intended as guidance for carrying out specific data processing activities under the GDPR. However, companies that operate a whistleblowing hotline in France in compliance with the CNIL’s Referential on whistleblowing hotlines can be confident that they comply with the GDPR and the French Data Protection Act. The Referential on whistleblowing hotlines will also aid companies in carrying out a data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”), which is required by the CNIL for the operation of a whistleblowing hotline. Companies that do not comply with the Referential on grounds relating to their particular situation will need to demonstrate why they need to depart from it and take all appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the GDPR and the French Data Protection Act. In addition, companies will have to comply with all other applicable laws, including French labor law and specific laws such as the French law of December 9, 2016, regarding transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of the economy, also known as the “Sapin II Law.” In particular, Article 8 of the Sapin II Law requires companies with at least 50 employees in France to implement a “general” whistleblowing hotline allowing employees and external and occasional collaborators (such as consultants/contractors) to report serious facts listed in that law. Article 17 of the Sapin II Law further requires companies with at least 500 employees in France (or companies that belong to a group headquartered in France and whose parent company has at least 500 employees), and with a (consolidated) turnover of more than €100 million, to implement an internal whistleblowing hotline allowing their employees to report behavior or situations that may constitute a violation of the company’s code of conduct with respect to bribery or influence peddling. Companies may implement a single whistleblowing hotline that allows whistleblowers to report various types of issues to comply with their different legal obligations and/or because they decide—on their own initiative—to allow reporting on these issues. Irrespective of the scope of their whistleblowing hotline, companies will process personal data when operating the hotline. The Referential on whistleblowing hotlines only relates to the processing of personal data in that particular context.
Main Changes in the Referential on Whistleblowing Hotlines
We have summarized the key changes introduced by the Referential on whistleblowing hotlines below.
- Scope of the Referential: The Referential applies to all types of whistleblowing hotlines. This includes (1) whistleblowing hotlines regulated by a specific French law that companies have the obligation (or choose) to implement (even if they do not meet the employee and/or turnover thresholds provided in the law), and (2) whistleblowing hotlines that are not contemplated by a specific French law and therefore are implemented on the company’s own initiative to combat improper or unethical behaviors in light of their internal rules (e.g., code of ethics or internal regulations). The Referential sets a single set of data protection rules that cover all these whistleblowing systems.
- Data Retention: The Referential on whistleblowing hotlines clarifies that, once a report has been investigated, personal data relating to a report must be erased or anonymized within two months of the conclusion of the investigation, where no action was taken on that report. The term “action” is to be interpreted broadly and may include the adoption or change of internal rules, a reorganization of the company’s operations or services, the imposition of disciplinary measures or the initiation of court proceedings. This means that personal data relating to a report may be kept after the two month period, even if no disciplinary or court action is undertaken.
- Notice to the Whistleblower: In addition to (1) the general privacy notice that should be provided to all potential users of the whistleblowing hotline and (2) the specific notice to the incriminated person, the Referential requires the provision of a specific notice to the whistleblower as follows:
- the whistleblower must receive the information required under Article 13 of the GDPR at the beginning of the collection of their report (e.g., by displaying some privacy language on the web reporting form before the whistleblower fills in the form);
- once a report has been submitted, the whistleblower must receive an acknowledgment of receipt to enable them to benefit from a specific protection regime, where relevant. This acknowledgment of receipt must indicate the time and date when the report was submitted. It also must summarize (1) all the information that has been reported (including the questions asked and the responses provided by the whistleblower, if the information was collected through a questionnaire), and (2) the documents the whistleblower has attached to their report; and,
- when the company (acting as the data controller) decides on the follow-up action(s) to be taken, the whistleblower must be informed of that decision.
View the CNIL’s Referential and FAQs on whistleblowing hotlines (in French).
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code