header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 August 2016 / Jayne Rothman
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Transatlantic compliance today

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Jayne Rothman examines the impact of a new set of compliance standards
  • New data privacy compliance obligations have invalidated the previous Safe Harbour privacy accord between the EU and the US.
  • There is now a new set of rules and compliance standards for businesses to learn.

A complicated picture just got more complex. The transatlantic transfer of personal data between the EU and the US is now governed by new data privacy compliance obligations following an October 2015 ruling that invalidated the previous Safe Harbour privacy accord. For businesses, this means a new set of rules to learn and a new set of compliance standards.

The background to this latest development can be traced back to 1995 and the establishment of the EU Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC). This Directive was enacted to balance the protections for individuals’ privacy with the free movement of personal data within the EU. The Directive established limits regarding the collection and use of personal data and required that each member state establish an independent national

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
Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Costs sting after a courtroom gamble
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
NLJ this week: Security denied
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
NLJ this week: Company conspiracy clarified
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
NLJ this week: Home is where intent lies
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
NLJ this week: Farewell to Chancery
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll