EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: “Open for Business”

Aug 8, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Natasha G. Kohne, Jo-Ellyn Sakowitz Klein, David S. Turetsky, Visiting Professor, College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity at the University of Albany

Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and EU Justice Minister Vera Jourova announced the start of Privacy Shield in a joint op-ed that highlighted the benefits that this new agreement will bring for EU citizens and U.S. businesses. The Privacy Shield includes seven principles to which organizations seeking to self-certify must commit, including a robust enforcement mechanism. The seven principles, which are detailed in the Adequacy Decision (and summarized here), are: notice; data integrity and purpose limitations; choice; security; individual access; accountability (for onward transfer); and recourse, enforcement and liability. According to the Department of Commerce, the response by businesses to the new Privacy Shield has been strong, based on the large number of applications received at the opening of the window and the range and different sizes of businesses that are applying. Below are a few implementation points to keep in mind.

Navigating the Application Process

It is important that businesses ensure that they are in compliance with the multitude of new requirements of the Privacy Shield before submitting their application. With one potential exception discussed below, “the Principles apply immediately upon certification.” For example, businesses will need to update privacy policies to reflect requirements in the notice principle that organizations provide information to individuals on the processing of personal data and the right to access that data. Also, businesses will want to ensure that they offer individuals an opportunity to opt out of the collection of their personal data where there may be disclosure to third parties or where use of the information will be materially different, but compatible with the purpose for which it was originally collected. And businesses will need to have in place procedures to respond to individual complaints within 45 days and will need to have designated an independent recourse mechanism to investigate unresolved individual complaints, consistent with the recourse, enforcement and liability principle. Some of the changes will already be addressed in many companies existing privacy policies, but a thorough review will be critical.

Incentives for Companies Engaging in Onward Transfer

To incentivize businesses to apply early that anticipate transferring personal data to third-party controllers or processors, the Privacy Shield allows those who submit their application for self-certification within the first two months of the August 1 start date to take an additional nine months from the date of submission to ensure that their contracts for onward transfer with third parties are in compliance. Businesses that submit their application after this initial two-month window closes and that intend to engage in the onward transfer of personal data will need to ensure that all such necessary contracts are in compliance at the time of submission of the application.

New Fee Structure

In conjunction with the initiation of the application process, the Department of Commerce published the new fee structure in the Federal Register. Unlike the flat fee structure under the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, the new fee structure is tiered based on the applicant’s annual revenues. The annual fees range from $250 for businesses with revenues under $5 million to $3,250 for businesses with revenues more than $5 billion. The fees have increased as compared to Safe Harbor to reflect the increased oversight and administrative role to be played by the Department of Commerce under Privacy Shield as compared to Safe Harbor.

Conclusion

The certainty that Privacy Shield brings to U.S. businesses and the assurances that it provides to EU citizens should help provide opportunities for continued growth in our shared digital economy. Please reach out to us if you have any questions regarding the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield requirements and process. One important takeaway is that there is a potentially important benefit to self-certifying and applying within the first 60 days.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.