header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 February 2016 / Ben Fielding
Issue: 7685 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

No port in a storm

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll