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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll