A class action style law suit valued at £2bn has been filed in the High Court against Google, focusing on subsidiary YouTube’s handling of child user data.
The action alleges that YouTube collected the data of over 5 million British children without parental consent. The requirement of parental consent is enshrined in the General Data Protection Regulation and UK Data Protection Act 2018.
The claimant, privacy expert Duncan McCann, is represented by litigation specialist firm Hausfeld and supported by tech rights group Foxglove.
See coverage from the BBC and Business Wire.
The European Court of Justice has handed down its highly anticipated ruling in the Schrems II case. The case considered the validity of the EU-US Privacy Shield and the efficacy of Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCC”) as data transfer protection mechanisms.
In this landmark case it was found that the EU Commission’s adequacy decision around the EU-US Privacy Shield framework was invalid. The leaves the mechanism for conducting EU-US data transfers in question. This matter maybe covered by recent discussions between the UK and US around entering into a seperate data sharing agreement. However, in the interim a transitional mechanism is sorely needed alongside guidance for data processors to give clarity to how data sharing between the countries can be regulated and data subjects rights safeguarded.
The SCC regime was affirmed to be valid however, it was suggested that companies and regulators enter into a case by case basis analysis of risk. In particular, it was highlighted that such an assessment should take place where government access to data is mandated. This is a highly topical issue in the US given current efforts to put in place a federal data protection regime.
For more details on the Schrems II case see-
Law firm Bird & Bird
The ICO‘s press release
On 24 September 2019 the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) handed down judgment in the case of Google v CNIL C-507/17. The effect of the case was that right to be forgotten requests only need be applied to domain names of Member States and not extra-territorially globally. The case, therefore, has implications for the processing and effectiveness of the right to be forgotten requests, particularly for requestors who seek de-listing of search results from multiple non-EU jurisdictions. Notably, the administrative burden upon search engine operators has been limited by the ruling. Continue reading
The right to be forgotten or right to erasure under data protection legislation and enshrined from the Google Spain case allows significant protection of information regarding the individual. In this post, we consider the seminal case of NT1 and NT2 which is illustrative of this fact. Continue reading
The European Data Protection Board issued a statement on 13 March 2019 urging the European Authorities to implement the new ePrivacy Regulation (the “Regulation”).
The Regulation itself sits alongside the existing GDPR framework and focuses on email marketing and cookies consent.
Debate has been generated around the extent to which the Regulation and the GDPR practically sit alongside each other to ensure that the, now onerous, data protection regime does not duplicate obligations. The Panopticon Blog has an excellent post covering this issue from Robin Hopkins. Continue reading