On March 12, 2021, France’s highest administrative court (the “Conseil d’État”) issued a summary judgment that rejected a request for the suspension of the partnership between the French Ministry of Health and Doctolib, a leading provider of online medical consultations in Europe, for the management of COVID-19 vaccination appointments. The Conseil d’État implicitly recognized that there was a risk of access by U.S. public authorities to the personal data processed, as Doctolib’s platform is hosted in Europe by Amazon Web Services, but nonetheless found that the level of protection for the data was not manifestly insufficient, given the type of the data in question and the safeguards implemented by Doctolib to deal with a possible access request from U.S. public authorities.
Background
As part of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the French Ministry of Health entrusted the management of online vaccination appointments to three service providers, including the French company, Doctolib. For the purposes of hosting the data, Doctolib uses the services of AWS Sarl (“AWS”), the Luxembourg affiliate of Amazon Web Services Inc. in the U.S. The personal data is hosted in AWS data centers in France and Germany, and AWS is certified as a health hosting service provider in accordance with the French Code of Public Health.
Several health professional associations and unions appealed to the summary proceedings judge of the Conseil d’État, asking for the suspension of the partnership between the French Ministry of Health and Doctolib and for an order that the Ministry of Health use another solution for the management of vaccination appointments. Substantively, the petitioners argued that the hosting of the data by a European affiliate of a U.S. company entails privacy risks due to possible access requests from U.S. public authorities in the context of U.S. surveillance programs, as highlighted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case. In that case, the CJEU found that the U.S. surveillance programs based on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and Executive Order 12333 (“EO 12333”) were not limited to what is strictly necessary, and that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework did not grant EU individuals actionable rights before a body offering guarantees that are substantially equivalent to those required under EU law. On those grounds, the CJEU declared the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield invalid.
Conseil d’État’s Decision
In its decision, the summary proceedings judge of the Conseil d’État recognized that the contract between Doctolib and AWS did not foresee any data transfers to the U.S. for technical purposes. However, the judge followed in substance the reasoning of the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) in the Health Data Hub case. In that case, the CNIL considered that the CJEU’s decision in Schrems II also requires examining the lawfulness of a situation in which a service provider processes personal data in the EU but faces the possibility of having to transfer the data following an administrative or judicial order or a request from U.S. intelligence services, because that service provider is the EU affiliate of a U.S. company. Accordingly, with respect to Doctolib, the judge found that it was necessary to verify the level of protection for the personal data processed by Doctolib, taking into account not only the contractual safeguards between Doctolib and its data processor, AWS, but also the relevant elements of the U.S. legal system when the data processor is subject to U.S. laws, even indirectly.
When making that assessment, the judge took into account the type of personal data processed by Doctolib. Contrary to what was alleged by the petitioners, no health data was processed by Doctolib as part of the vaccination campaign. The data hosted by Doctolib only included identification data and information on vaccination appointments but did not include any information about the reason why the individual was eligible for priority in vaccination because of a specific pathology. In addition, the judge noted that the personal data hosted by Doctolib was deleted after three months and that individuals could delete the data directly online. As part of the contractual safeguards, the judge further noted that the contract between Doctolib and AWS provides for a specific procedure for handling access requests from a foreign authority, including the guarantee that AWS will challenge any general access request or any request that does not comply with European law. Finally, as part of the technical safeguards, the judge noted that the data hosted by AWS is encrypted and the encryption key is held by a trusted third party in France and not by AWS. The judge concluded that the level of data protection was not manifestly insufficient in light of the risk of U.S. authorities requesting the data. The judge therefore rejected the request of the applicant associations and unions.
Read the press release (in English) and full summary judgment of the Conseil d’État (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