header-logo header-logo

05 February 2016 / Ben Fielding
Issue: 7685 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

No port in a storm

Ben Fielding examines the implications of the end of Safe Harbor

For the past 15 years, the “Safe Harbor” agreement between the EU and US has allowed US-based companies and organisations to meet the European Commission’s “adequacy” standards and to legally transfer data from the EU to US, ensuring compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive). However, last month, the European Court of Justice ruled the agreement was invalid as it did not sufficiently protect the privacy of EU citizens.

The decision, along with the ongoing legislative process for the passing of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), marks the beginning of a new era in data protection regulation. With the end of Safe Harbor, which was used by some 4,400 companies, many international companies are nervous about the implications of this on how they do business.

Why did it end?

Safe Harbor was designed to meet the adequacy requirements which arose as a result of the Data Protection Directive, which in turn was passed to protect data privacy and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll