On November 12, 2020, the European Commission published a draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to third countries pursuant to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), along with its draft set of new standard contractual clauses (the “SCCs”).
Key Takeaways
Key takeaways regarding the draft implementing decision and the SCCs include:
- The SCCs seek to take into account the complexity of modern processing chains by combining a number of general provisions with several modular provisions that should be selected based on the status of the parties under the GDPR, namely provisions for (1) controller-to-controller transfers; (2) controller-to-processor transfers; (3) processor-to-processor transfers; and (4) processor-to-controller transfers (in particular where the EU processor combines personal data received from the third-country controller with personal data collected in the EU).
- The general clauses include language regarding the: (1) obligation for the parties to ensure that the data protection laws in the receiving country, including any requirements to disclose personal data or measures authorizing access by public authorities, do not prevent the data importer from fulfilling its obligations under the SCCs; (2) obligations of the data importer, with respect to government access requests, to notify the exporter of such requests, review the legality of the request and ensure that only the minimum amount of information as permissible under law is provided when responding to a request; (3) redress mechanism available to data subjects; (4) indemnification of the parties in the event of a breach of the SCCs; (5) supervision of transfers by supervisory authorities; (6) obligations of the parties, in the event the data importer is unable to comply with the SCCs; (7) termination of the SCCs; (8) parties’ ability to choose the law of one of the EU Member States to govern the SCCs, which must allow for third-party beneficiary rights; and (9) choice of forum and jurisdiction in the event of a dispute arising from the SCCs.
- Controllers and processors should select the module clauses applicable to their situation and tailor their obligations under the SCCs to their corresponding roles and responsibilities in relation to the data processing at issue. Depending on designation of the parties as controller or processor, the modular clauses for transfers include language regarding the: (1) data protection safeguards that must be implemented by the parties depending on their designation under the GDPR, including safeguards relating to the instructions that must be provided for the transfer, transparency, purpose limitation, accuracy and data minimization, storage limitation, erasure and return of data, security, transfer of sensitive data and data relating to criminal convictions or offences, onward transfers and accountability obligations of the parties; (2) appointment of sub-processors in the context of controller-to-processor and processor-to-processor transfers; (3) data subject rights and the parties’ obligations in the event of a data subject rights request; and (4) parties’ liability under the SCCs.
- Annex I to the SCCs must be completed by the parties and includes (1) a description of the transfers, including the categories of data subjects whose personal data is transferred, categories of personal data transferred, purpose(s) of the transfer and further processing, maximum data retention periods, if applicable, and, for transfers to (sub)-processors, the subject matter, nature and duration of the processing; and (2) a list of parties to the SCCs. The SCCs explicitly contemplate execution between three or more parties and the accession of additional parties throughout the life cycle of the contract. Further, Annex II to the SCCs should be completed by the data importer(s) to include a description of the technical and organizational measures implemented to ensure an appropriate level of security for the data transferred. Finally, Annex III to the SCCs should list the sub-processors used by the processor, if applicable.
- Controllers or processors may incorporate the SCCs into a broader contract and may include additional clauses or safeguards, provided that they do not contradict directly or indirectly the SCCs or prejudice data subjects’ fundamental rights or freedoms. Controllers and processors are encouraged to provide additional safeguards via contractual commitments that supplement the SCCs.
- Data subjects must be provided with a copy of the SCCs upon request and informed of any change of purpose and of the identity of any third-party to whom the personal data is disclosed. With respect to onward transfers to additional recipients in third countries, transfers are allowed only if (1) the recipient accedes to the SCCs; (2) protection of the personal data transferred is ensured by other means; or (3) data subjects’ provide informed and explicit consent.
- Controllers and processors may continue to rely on the existing SCCs during a transitional period of one year from the adoption of the new SCCs, provided that the contract remains unchanged, with the exception of the inclusion of necessary supplementary measures to ensure that the transfer of personal data is subject to appropriate safeguards.
Next Steps
The SCCs are open for public consultation until December 10, 2020, and feedback may be submitted here. The adoption process for the SCCs requires an opinion of the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and the positive vote of EU Member States through the comitology procedure. The final SCCs are expected to be adopted in early 2021.
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