Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On January 27, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced (in French) that it imposed a fine of €150,000 on a data controller, and a fine of €75,000 on its data processor, for failure to implement adequate security measures to protect customers’ personal data against credential stuffing attacks on the website of the data controller. The CNIL decided not to make its decisions public, thereby not disclosing the name of the companies sanctioned.

On January 19, 2021, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published its analysis of the application of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (the “UK GDPR”) to transfers from UK-based firms or branches that are registered, required to be registered or otherwise regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

On January 26, 2021, BBB National Programs announced that it has been endorsed as an Accountability Agent for the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) and Privacy Recognition for Processors (“PRP”) systems. This makes BBB National Programs the seventh CBPR and PRP Accountability Agent worldwide and the first ever U.S. non-profit to be approved by APEC.

On January 18, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) released draft Guidelines 01/2021 on Examples regarding Data Breach Notification (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines complement the initial Guidelines on personal data breach notification under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) adopted by the Article 29 Working Party in February 2018. The new draft Guidelines take into account supervisory authorities’ common experiences with data breaches since the GDPR became applicable in May 2018. The EDPB’s aim is to assist data controllers in deciding how to handle data breaches, including by identifying the factors that they must take into account when conducting risk assessments to determine whether a breach must be reported to relevant supervisory authorities and/or the affected data subjects.

On January 15, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) and European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) adopted joint opinions on the draft Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) released by the European Commission in November 2020, for both international transfers (“International SCCs”) and controller-processor relationships within the EEA (“EEA Controller-Processor SCCs”). 

On December 16, 2020, the Committee of Experts within India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) (the “Committee”) issued a revised report on the Non-Personal Data Governance Framework (the “NPDF”) for India (the “Revised Committee Report”).

On January 13, 2021, Advocate General (“AG”) Michal Bobek of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued his Opinion in the Case C-645/19 of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”).

On January 13, 2021, the FTC announced that fertility-app developer Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”) agreed to a settlement over allegations that the company shared app users’ health information with third-party data analytics providers despite representations that Flo would keep such information private.

As reported on the Hunton Retail Law Resource blog, the Federal Trade Commission settled charges with mobile advertising company Tapjoy, Inc., on allegations that the company failed to provide promised rewards in exchange for completed activities such as the payment of money, disclosure of sometimes-sensitive personal information or registration for “free trial” marketing offers.

On November 23, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) consultation on draft guidelines on relevant and reasoned objections under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) cooperation and consistency mechanisms (the “Guidelines). The consultation on the Guidelines took place a few weeks before the EDPB issued its first binding decision under the Article 65 GDPR dispute resolution mechanism.

On December 24, 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in principle on the historic EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the “Trade Agreement”). For data protection purposes, there is a further transition period of up to six months to enable the European Commission to complete its adequacy assessment of the UK’s data protection laws. For the time being, personal data can continue to be exported from the EU to the UK without implementing additional safeguards.

On December 21, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) released its 2021-2023 Strategy (the “Strategy”). The Strategy aims at setting out the four main pillars of the EDPB strategic objectives through 2023 and key actions to help achieve those objectives:

On December 17, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published its Data Sharing Code of Practice (the “Code”), in accordance with its obligation to do so under the Data Protection Act 2018 (the “DPA”).

On December 14, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had issued orders to nine social media and video streaming companies, requesting information on how the companies collect, use and present personal information, their advertising and user engagement practices and how their practices affect children and teens. The orders will assist the FTC in conducting a study of these policies, practices and procedures. The FTC issued the orders pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency to undertake broad studies separate from its law enforcement activities.

On December 15, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (“DPC”) announced its fine of €450,000 against Twitter International Company (“Twitter”), following its investigation into a breach resulting from a bug in Twitter’s design. The fine is the largest issued by the Irish DPC under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) to date and is also its first against a U.S.-based organization.

On December 10, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Commission’s invitation for comments on its draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) to be used for the transfer of personal data from a controller or processor subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (i.e., a data exporter) to a controller or (sub-)processor not subject to the GDPR (i.e., a data importer).

On December 10, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the European Commission’s invitation for comments on its draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) between controllers and processors for purposes of Article 28 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). Article 28 of the GDPR sets out specific provisions that must be executed between data controllers and processors when personal data is shared.

Hunton Andrews Kurth is pleased to announce the release of Sweet & Maxwell’s fifth edition of Data Protection Law and Practice, written by Rosemary Jay, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s senior consultant attorney. This edition has been re-written to provide a thorough review of the current state of data protection law in the UK, along with details of relevant background context.

On December 10, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it has levied fines of €60 million on Google LLC and €40 million on Google Ireland Limited under the French cookie rules for their alleged failure to (1) obtain the consent of users of the French version of Google's search engine (google.fr) before setting advertising cookies on their devices; (2) provide users with adequate information about the use of cookies; and (3) implement a fully effective opt-out mechanism to enable users to refuse cookies. On the same date, the CNIL announced that it has levied a fine of €35 million on Amazon Europe Core under the same rules for its alleged failure to (1) obtain the consent of users of the amazon.fr site before setting advertising cookies on their devices; and (2) provide adequate information about the use of cookies.

On December 2, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s (“DCMS”) UK National Data Strategy  (“NDS”) consultation.

On November 26, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”) signed a cooperation agreement with DNS Belgium, the organization managing the “.be” country code top-level domain name. The purpose of the cooperation agreement is to allow DNS Belgium to suspend “.be” websites that are linked to infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

On November 25, 2020, the European Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (the “Data Governance Act”). The Data Governance Act is part of a set of measures announced in the 2020 European Strategy for Data, which is aimed at putting the EU at the forefront of the data empowered society. The European Commission also released a Questions & Answers document and a Factsheet on European data governance.

On November 26, 2020, the Conference of the German Data Protection Authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, the “DSK”) issued a press release with conclusions from their 100th anniversary meeting.

On November 26, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it imposed a fine of €2.25 million on Carrefour France and a fine of €800,000 on Carrefour Banque for various violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act governing the use of cookies.

On November 23, 2020, the Dutch District Court of Midden-Nederland (the “Court”) determined that the concept of a legitimate interest for processing is broader than simply being an interest derived from law, overturning a fine by the Dutch data protection authority (the “Dutch DPA”).

On November 18, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) of the People’s Republic of China on the Draft Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).

On November 12, 2020, somewhat in the shadow of the new standard contractual clauses for data transfers to recipients outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”), the European Commission also adopted draft standard contractual clauses to be used between controllers and processors in the EEA (“EEA Controller-Processor SCCs”).

On November 13, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) fined Ticketmaster UK Limited (“Ticketmaster”) £1.25 million for failing to keep its customers’ personal data secure. The ICO found that Ticketmaster had failed to implement appropriate security measures to prevent a cyber attack, breaching the requirements of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The ICO acted as the lead supervisory authority with regard to the cross-border processing affected by this breach, and the penalty has been approved by the other EU data protection authorities through the GDPR’s cooperation process. Ticketmaster has indicated that it will appeal the fine.

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”).

On November 11, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published its long-awaited recommendations following the Schrems II judgement regarding supplementary measures in the context of international transfer safeguards such as Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) (the “Recommendations”). In addition, the EDPB published recommendations on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures (the “EEG Recommendations”), which complement the Recommendations. The Recommendations are subject to a public consultation, which closes on December 21, 2020.

On November 10, 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining the data protection considerations that arise on the UK’s departure from the EU. The UK’s Brexit transition period ends on December 31, 2020, and it is not clear whether the EU will formally recognize the UK’s data protection regime as ‘adequate.’ What does this mean for companies’ plans to update their data transfer mechanisms? Is adequacy the holy grail it is widely believed to be? What other issues must be considered? Is there still time?

On October 22, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) call for views and evidence on its review of representative actions under Section 189 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”). Section 189 requires the UK government to review the operation of the representative action provisions of the DPA and provide a report to Parliament by November 25, 2020.

On October 27, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a report following its investigation into data protection compliance in the direct marketing data broking sector, alongside its enforcement action against Experian. During the investigation, the ICO conducted audits of the direct marketing data broking businesses of the UK’s three largest credit reference agencies (“CRAs”) – Experian, Equifax and TransUnion – and found “significant data protection failures at each” that were “deeply embedded” within the businesses.

On October 30, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced its fine of £18.4 (approximately $23.9 million) issued to Marriott International, Inc., (“Marriott”) for violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is a significant decrease from the proposed fine of £99,200,396 (approximately $124 million) announced by the ICO in July 2019. The ICO’s fine only relates to the breach from the point at which the GDPR came into force in May 2018, and is the second largest fine levied by the ICO thus far under the GDPR. Marriott has not admitted liability for the breach, but has indicated that it does not plan to appeal.

On October 27, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published its enforcement notice against credit reference agency Experian Limited (“Experian”) under Section 149 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) (the “notice”). The notice requires Experian to make fundamental changes to its offline direct marketing practices, and was issued after the ICO undertook a two-year investigation into the use of personal data by data broking businesses Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.

On October 21, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) released its updated guidance on the data subject right of access under Article 15 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The ICO provided a draft of the guidance for consultation in December 2019, and in response to the feedback it received, supplemented the guidance with additional content. The guidance provides more in-depth advice for organizations than what was provided in the ICO’s previous guide and includes examples designed to demonstrate how the GDPR’s requirements will apply in practice.

On November 5, 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a panel discussion with representatives from the UK Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) and the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) to explore the latest developments on cookie guidance and compare their respective approaches. In our webinar titled “From a Regulator’s Perspective: Latest Developments on Cookie Guidance from the ICO and CNIL,” our speakers will discuss practical cookie law issues, including:

On October 13, 2020, France’s highest administrative court (the “Conseil d’État”) issued a summary judgment that rejected a request for the suspension of France’s centralized health data platform, Health Data Hub (the “HDH”), currently hosted by Microsoft. However, the Conseil d’État recognized that there is a risk of U.S. intelligence services requesting the data and called for additional guarantees under the control of the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”).

On October 15, 2020, Brazil’s President Bolsonaro officially nominated the five Directors of the new Brazilian data protection authority (Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados, “ANPD”), as published in the Brazilia Official Journal. The Decree establishing the ANPD, on which we reported earlier, is now fully in effect. All five nominations, however, must still be approved by the Brazilian Senate, which means there are further steps before the ANPD is fully established and operational.

On October 16, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced its fine of £20,000,000 (approximately $25,850,000) for British Airways (“BA”), which is owned by International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A, for violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is a significant (approximately 90%) decrease from the proposed fine of £183,390,000 (approximately $230,000,000) announced by the ICO in July 2019, but is the largest fine imposed to date by the ICO.

On September 30, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released its 2019 Annual Report (the “Report”). Notably, 2019 was the year of the Belgian DPA’s first fines under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) and the release of the Belgian DPA’s 2019-2025 Strategic Plan.

On October 1, 2020, the Hamburg Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) fined Hennes & Mauritz AB (“H&M”) € 35.3 million for unlawful employee monitoring practices in the company’s service center concerning several hundred employees. According to the DPA’s press release, H&M was maintaining excessive details about employees’ private lives since 2014. This includes notes taken by managers regarding (1) employees’ vacation experiences, illnesses, diagnoses and symptoms as discussed with managers during welcome-back talks after employees’ vacation or sick leave, and (2) information ranging from employees’ family problems to religious beliefs obtained by managers during floor talks. The information was stored digitally and could be read by up to 50 managers throughout the company. According to the DPA, the managers’ notes were sometimes made with a high level of detail and maintained over great periods of time. The press release states that the information was used to evaluate the performance of employees, create employee profiles and make other employment-related decisions.

On October 1, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published a revised version of its guidelines on cookies and similar technologies (the “Guidelines”), its final recommendations on the practical modalities for obtaining users’ consent to store or read non-essential cookies and similar technologies on their devices (the “Recommendations”) and a set of questions and answers on the Recommendations (“FAQs”).

On September 18, 2020, as confirmed by Brazilian firm Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr. e Quiroga Advogados, Brazil’s President signed a bill from Brazil’s Congress bringing the new Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, “LGPD”) into effect with a retroactive applicability date of August 16, 2020. The LGPD’s sanctions provisions will apply beginning August 1, 2021, based on a previous delay passed by Brazil’s legislature. As we previously reported, on August 26, 2020, Brazil’s Senate had unexpectedly rejected the ...

On September 7, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) released draft Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines aim to (1) clarify the concepts of controller, joint controllers, processor, third party and recipient under the GDPR by providing concrete examples with respect to each; and (2) specify the consequences attached to the different roles of controller, joint controllers and processor. The Guidelines replace the previous opinion of the Article 29 Working Party on these concepts.

On September 8, 2020, the Swiss Data Protection Authority (the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner, “FDPIC”), announced in a position statement that it no longer considers the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield adequate for the purposes of transfers of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S. This decision follows the July 2020 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case, which invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for EU-U.S. transfers of personal data. This ruling was considered as part of the annual review of the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework by the FDPIC since, as Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it is not bound by the CJEU ruling.

On September 4, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) announced that it established two taskforces following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case.

On September 3, 2020, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE Committee”) of the European Parliament held a meeting to discuss the future of EU-U.S. data flows following the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). In addition to Members of the European Parliament (“MEPs”), the meeting’s participants included Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders, European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) Chair Andrea Jelinek and Maximilian Schrems. Importantly, Commissioner Reynders stated during the meeting that the new Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) might be adopted by the end of 2020, at the earliest.

On August 24, 2020, the Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) of the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg issued guidance on international data transfers following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems II case (decision C-311/18 of July 16, 2020). As we previously reported, the judgment of the CJEU invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and confirmed the ongoing validity of the controller-to-processor EU Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), subject to an adequacy assessment and, if necessary, additional safeguards to protect the personal data transferred pursuant to the SCCs. The guidance is notable because it is the first substantive guidance from a DPA following the Schrems II judgment (although the guidance is only applicable to companies established in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg).

On August 27, 2020, the Brazilian Presidency published Decree 10.474/2020 (the “Decree”) in the Official Journal, approving the regulatory structure of the new Brazilian data protection authority (the “ANPD”) and establishing its roles. The Decree will apply after the President-Director of the ANPD is officially appointed through publication in the Official Journal.

On August 26, 2020, as reported by Brazilian firm Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr. e Quiroga Advogados, the Brazilian Senate unexpectedly rejected the President’s Provisional Measure that was previously passed by the House of Representatives and aimed to postpone the applicability of the new Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, or “LGPD”). The LGPD now will come into effect when the President signs the bill within 15 days of receiving the bill from Congress. The LGPD’s sanctions provisions, however, will continue to apply from August 1, 2021. The President also has issued a decree creating the new Brazilian data protection authority.

On August 27, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) announced it approved the “Data Pro Code,” a code of conduct drafted by industry association NLdigital (the “Code”). This Code is the first code of conduct approved by the Dutch DPA under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). Adhering to the Code will help organizations active in the Information and Communications Technology sector comply with their obligations under the GDPR. The Code includes, among other things, a series of practical GDPR compliance tools, such as the “Data Pro Statement” that companies may use to inform potential customers of the data protection safeguards they have in place.

On August 20, 2020, Secretary-General of the Presidency of the Republic, Jorge Antônio de Oliveira Francisco, announced that the administrative decree to create the new Brazilian data protection authority (the Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados, or “ANPD”) is ready and may be published at any time, after final technical adjustments are made. The Secretary-General made this statement during his remarks at the webinar “The ANPD: from the letter of law to the practice,” jointly organized by the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) and the Centro de Estudos de Direito, Internet e Sociedade of Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público (“CEDIS-IDP”) and hosted by the news channel JOTA.

On August 5, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it has levied a fine of €250,000 on French online shoe retailer, Spartoo, for various infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is the first penalty under the GDPR enforced by the CNIL as the lead supervisory authority (“Lead SA”) in cooperation with other EU supervisory authorities (“SAs”).

On July 30, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €20,000 fine on Belgian telecommunications provider Proximus N.V. (“Proximus”) for several data protection infringements related to Proximus’ public directory. In particular, the claimant requested that Proximus remove his contact details from the public directory and inform other publishers of public directories not to publish his personal data. Despite informing the claimant that it was going to proceed accordingly, Proximus still published his personal data in its public directory and shared it with other publishers of public directories.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as part of its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the Privacy Shield framework on the basis that the limitations on U.S. public authorities’ access to EU personal data were not sufficient for the level of protection in the U.S. to be considered equivalent to that ensured in the EU, and that the framework does not grant EU individuals actionable rights before a body offering guarantees that are substantially equivalent to those required under EU law.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 6, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) imposed a €830,000 fine on the Dutch Credit Registration Bureau (Stichting Bureau Krediet Registration, “BKR”) for non-compliance with Articles 12(2) and 12(5) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) between May 2018 and March 2019.

In one of the most important cases on global data transfers, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will rule on the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020. Invalidation of the SCCs would leave businesses scrambling to find an alternative data transfer mechanism. But there may be significant practical challenges for businesses even if the SCCs survive.

On July 14, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €600,000 fine on Google Belgium SA (“Google”) for non-compliance with the right to be forgotten.

On July 8, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its White Paper (the “Paper”) as input for the European Data Protection Board’s (the “EDPB”) future guidelines on data subject rights (“DSRs”) (the “Guidelines”). The Paper, titled “Data Subject Rights under the GDPR in a Global Data Driven and Connected World,” was drafted following the EDPB stakeholders’ event on DSR in Brussels on November 4, 2019.

In a case that has garnered widespread interest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will deliver its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020, determining the validity of the controller–to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a cross-border data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). If the SCCs are invalidated, the judgment would deliver a significant blow to the numerous businesses that rely on them, leaving many scrambling to find a suitable alternative transfer mechanism. Even if the SCCs survive, they may become more cumbersome to use.

On July 13, 2020, the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, “Garante”) announced that it levied a €16,729,600 fine on telecoms provider Wind Tre S.p.A. (“Wind Tre”) for several unlawful data processing activities, mostly related to direct marketing.

On June 16, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a fine on a company (the “defendant”) for unlawful and incorrect processing of personal data and non-compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation’s (the “GDPR”) data subject rights provisions.

On July 1, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) published its 2019 annual report (the “Report”). The Report shows that in 2019, the Dutch DPA focused on enforcement actions, after having raised awareness about the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) in 2018. Below are key findings from the Report.

The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, “Garante”) recently announced that it levied a €600,000 fine on banking institution UniCredit for several violations of the Italian Personal Data Protection Code, in its pre-General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) form.

On June 19, 2020, France’s Highest Administrative Court (“Conseil d’Etat”) upheld the decision of the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) to impose a €50 million fine on Google LLC (“Google”) under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) for its alleged failure to (1) provide notice in an easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, when users configure their Android mobile devices and create Google accounts, and (2) obtain users’ valid consent to process their personal data for ad personalization purposes. Google had appealed this decision before the Conseil d’Etat. Because the Conseil d’Etat hears cases on appeal from the CNIL in both the first and last instances, the CNIL’s fine is now final. This fine against Google was the first fine imposed by the CNIL under the GDPR and is the highest fine imposed by an EU supervisory authority under the GDPR to date.

On May 29, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted formal comments to the European Commission’s Consultation on a European Strategy for Data (the “Strategy”).

On June 9, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2019 (the “Report”).

On June 5, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published guidance on its website (the “Guidance”) regarding temperature checks during the COVID-19 crisis. The Guidance aims to provide advice to organizations looking to control access to their premises by restricting individuals with fevers in order to prevent further spread of the virus.

On May 29, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a fine of €1,000 on a non-profit organization. The decision followed a complaint filed by an individual who continued to receive promotional materials from the organization after he had objected to the processing of his contact details for direct marketing purposes and had requested that the organization erase his data from its database.

On May 25 and May 26, 2020 respectively, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published two opinions on draft laws introducing COVID-19-related tracking initiatives: (1) the Opinion 42/2020 on the draft law for the creation of a database by Sciensano, a public health institution (“Opinion 42/2020”), and (2) the Opinion 43/2020 on the draft law for the use of contact tracing apps to fight the spread of COVID-19 (“Opinion 43/2020”).

The COVID-19 outbreak has created unprecedented operational and legal challenges for businesses across the globe. As businesses continue to navigate uncertainties during the pandemic, they are turning to guidance issued by EU data protection authorities on a number of important privacy concerns. Join us on June 23, 2020, for an in-depth webinar on Addressing Key GDPR Issues During COVID-19 as we discuss some of these privacy concerns.

On May 19, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) announced that the Litigation Chamber had imposed a €50,000 fine on a social media provider for unlawful processing of personal data in connection with the “invite-a-friend” function offered on its platform.

On the second anniversary of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published a Statement with some key GDPR-related numbers (the “Statement”).

On May 18, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) released its Annual Report (the “Report”) providing details of the EDPB’s work in 2019. This included publication of guidelines, binding decisions and general guidance on the interpretation of EU data protection law.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication recently introduced a new draft of Pakistan’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2020 (the “Bill”) and launched a public consultation regarding the same. The public consultation period will end on May 15, 2020. The Bill, which applies to “any person who processes” or “has control over or authorizes the processing of” any personal data, if the data subject, the controller or processor are located in Pakistan, would establish certain requirements and restrictions related to the processing of personal data, as well as penalties for violating the law. In addition, under the Bill, the federal government would, within six months of coming into force, establish a Personal Data Protection Authority of Pakistan with rulemaking authority to enforce the act.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) recently imposed a €750,000 fine on a company for unlawful processing of employees’ fingerprints for attendance taking and time registration purposes.

On May 7, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) updated its previous guidance for employers relating to the processing of employee and visitor personal data in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, in particular, in the context of lifting containment measures (the “Updated Guidance”). Some employers may consider implementing systematic body temperature checks at the entrance to their premises. Similarly, employers may wish to assess employees’ exposure to the virus or their health statuses when they return to work. The Updated Guidance analyzes some of these practices and outlines the principles applicable to data processing activities.

On May 6, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published its Guidelines 05/2020 (the “EDPB Guidelines”) on consent under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). The EDPB Guidelines are a slightly updated version of the Article 29 Working Party’s Guidelines on consent under the GDPR (the WP29 Guidelines), which were adopted in April 2018 and endorsed by the EDPB in its first Plenary meeting.

On April 28, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €50,000 fine on a company for non-compliance with the requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) related to the appointment of a data protection officer (“DPO”).

On April 28, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP submitted formal comments to the European Commission’s consultation on its roadmap for the two-year evaluation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Response”).

On April 29, 2020, the Brazilian President issued Provisional Measure #959/2020, which provisionally delays the applicability date of the Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais – “LGPD”) to May 3, 2021.

On April 16, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”), in collaboration with the Centro de Estudos de Direito, Internet e Sociedade of Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público (“CEDIS-IDP”), published a White Paper (the “White Paper”) on the Role of the Brazilian Data Protection Authority (“ANPD”) under Brazil’s New Data Protection Law (“LGPD”). The White Paper is accompanied by two infographics: 1) the priorities of the Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados, and 2) the case for an effective Brazil DPA - the ANPD.

On April 16, 2020, the European eHealth Network—a voluntary network connecting national authorities responsible for eHealth designated by EU Member States—published a common EU toolbox for the use of contact tracing and warning apps in response to the coronavirus pandemic (the “Toolbox”). The Toolbox is part of the common EU coordinated approach to using COVID-19 mobile apps, as set out in the European Commission’s Recommendation of April 8, 2020. The Toolbox was accompanied by guidance from the European Commission on data protection and privacy aspects of the use of such apps (the “Guidance”).

On April 15, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published the final version of its standard (“Referential”) concerning the processing of personal data for core Human Resources (“HR”) management purposes. That Referential was adopted following a public consultation launched by the CNIL on April 11, 2019. 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 HR data processing activities.

On April 9, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released guidance and a set of frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) regarding the use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

On April 8, 2020, the European Commission adopted a recommendation to develop a common European approach to using mobile applications and mobile location data in response to the coronavirus pandemic (the “Recommendation”).

On April 6, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) published a report summarizing the DPC’s findings following a cookie sweep of select websites across a range of sectors, as well as a new guidance note on the use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

On April 1, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released guidance for employers on how to implement teleworking (the “Guidance”) as well as best practices for their employees in this context (the “Best Practices”).

The Conference of German Data Protection Authorities (“DSK”), the body of the federal and state Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) in Germany, recently issued joint recommendations regarding employers’ processing of employee personal data in the context of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. The DSK makes it clear that data protection does not hinder measures to fight COVID-19. According to DSK, employers can collect personal data of employees in order to prevent the spreading of the virus at the workforce. Employers also may process personal data of workplace visitors for COVID-19 related purposes. However, all measures must be proportionate.

On March 25, 2020, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) sent a letter to the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (“DG CONNECT”) addressing the various initiatives involving telecommunications providers at the Member State level to monitor the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak using location data.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) recently published materials regarding the COVID-19 crisis, including recommendations and FAQs for employers and recommendations for employees. In the materials, the Dutch DPA emphasizes that, while fighting the virus and saving lives is the top priority, privacy must not be overlooked and the crisis should not become a prelude to a “Big Brother” society.

The Spanish Data Protection Authority (the “AEPD”) recently published a report on data processing activities carried out by data controllers in the private and public sectors as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus (the “Report”).

On March 19, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Authority (the “DPC”) published guidance to assist organizations in understanding their data security obligations and to mitigate their risks of a personal data breach when using cloud-based services (the “Guidance”).

Hunton’s Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) reports on the top privacy-related priorities for this year:

1.  Global Convergence and Interoperability between Privacy Regimes

Around the world, new privacy laws are coming into force and outdated laws continue to be updated: the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), Brazil’s Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (“LGPD”), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act, India’s and Indonesia’s proposed bills, California’s Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), and the various efforts in the rest of the United States at the federal and state levels. This proliferation of privacy laws is bound to continue.

On March 12, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released its annual inspection strategy for 2020. The CNIL carries out approximately 300 inspections every year. These inspections are initiated (1) following complaints lodged with the CNIL; (2) in light of current topics in the news; (3) after the CNIL has adopted corrective measures (e.g., formal notices, sanctions) in order to verify whether the organization in question adopted the measures or remedied the situation; and (4) as part of the CNIL’s annual inspection strategy.

On March 3, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) announced that it had imposed a €525,000 fine on the Royal Dutch Tennis Association (De Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond, “KNLTB”) for an illegal sale of personal data.

On February 24, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published general policy messages and a synthesis of the contributions and replies by its members - national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) - to the Questionnaire on the Evaluation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) sent by the European Commission (the “Contribution”).

On February 10, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Recommendation 1/2020 on data processing activities for direct marketing purposes (the “Recommendation”). With this Recommendation, the Belgian DPA aims to clarify the complex rules relating to the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes, including by providing practical examples and guidelines to the different stakeholders involved in direct marketing activities. Direct marketing is one of the Belgian DPA’s top priorities for the next few years, as indicated in its 2019-2025 Strategic Plan.