Skip to content
  • Background. Company B-1 and Company B-2 are corporate affiliates who are under common ownership or control but are separate legal entities. While data is being directly sent from Controller A in Europe to Controller B-2 in the United States, Controller A has contracted only with Controller B-1 in Europe. Solid line indicates the data flow; dashed line indicates the contract relationships.
  • No mechanism needed for transfer from Company A to Company B-1. The GDPR does not require a safeguard mechanism for data transferred from a company in the EEA to another company in the EEA. In the visual depiction, while data is not being physically transferred from Company A to Company B-1, Company B-1 might be classified as a “controller” to the extent it determines the purpose and means of processing the data (e.g., while it is in the possession of Company B-2).
  • 1st SCC Module 1. Although Company B-1 and Company B-2 may be under common ownership or control, as separate legal entities they are required to put into place a safeguard when transferring data from the EEA to the US.[1] In this case, while no physical data is being transferred from Company B-1 to Company B-2, the parties might consider putting in place a Standard Contractual Clause (SCC) as the transfer of data is being done at the direction of Company B-1.
  • 2nd SCC Module 1. The GDPR requires that “any transfer of personal data” has an adequate safeguard.[2] As data is being physically transmitted by Company A to Company B-2, an argument could be made that an SCC Module 1 should be in place between those two entities, even if Company A transmitted the data pursuant to a separate contract with Company B-2’s corporate affiliate (i.e., Company B-1).
  • Transfer Impact Assessments. Section 14 of the SCCs requires that (Company A, Company B-1, and Company B-2) document a transfer impact assessment of U.S. law to determine whether any party has reason to believe the laws and practices of the United States that apply to the personal data transferred prevent Company B-2 from fulfilling its obligations under the SCCs.
  • Law enforcement request policy. Section 15 of the SCCs requires Company B-2 to take specific steps in the event it receives a request from a public authority for access to personal data. As a result, Company B-2 might consider creating a law enforcement request policy.

 

[1]EDPB, Guidelines 05/2021 on the interplay between the application of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR at para. 16.

[2]GDPR, Art. 44.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David A. Zetoony David A. Zetoony

David Zetoony, Co-Chair of the firm’s U.S. Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, focuses on helping businesses navigate data privacy and cyber security laws from a practical standpoint. David has helped hundreds of companies establish and maintain ongoing privacy and security programs, and he

David Zetoony, Co-Chair of the firm’s U.S. Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, focuses on helping businesses navigate data privacy and cyber security laws from a practical standpoint. David has helped hundreds of companies establish and maintain ongoing privacy and security programs, and he has defended corporate privacy and security practices in investigations initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, and other data privacy and security regulatory agencies around the world, as well as in class action litigation.

Photo of Carsten A. Kociok Carsten A. Kociok

Carsten Kociok is a partner in the Technology, Financial Services and Data Privacy Practice in Berlin and Co-Head of Greenberg Traurig’s global Fintech Group. He advises national and international clients across all industries, including financial services, information technology, artificial intelligence, ecommerce, media, health

Carsten Kociok is a partner in the Technology, Financial Services and Data Privacy Practice in Berlin and Co-Head of Greenberg Traurig’s global Fintech Group. He advises national and international clients across all industries, including financial services, information technology, artificial intelligence, ecommerce, media, health care, telecoms, retail and real estate, on a wide variety of complex commercial and regulatory matters.

Carsten is a leading technology lawyer, ranked consistently in Band 1 for Fintech Legal in Germany since 2020. He has in-depth and wide-ranging experience in the areas of privacy and cybersecurity, payments law, financial services, e-money products, blockchain technology, and financial and banking regulation, as well as in artificial intelligence regulation – including compliance with the EU AI Act – and the integration of AI technologies into existing software systems.

Carsten regularly assists clients in licensing projects and audit proceedings with financial regulators and advises on the contractual and regulatory aspects of developing, implementing and operating financial technology products and transactions.

On the data privacy side, Carsten counsels clients on complex data-driven business models and regulatory matters, including on international data transfers, data privacy compliance, monetization of data, artificial intelligence, litigation, cybersecurity and data breach response.

Carsten regularly lectures and publishes on various FinTech and data privacy topics. Prior to joining the firm, Carsten worked at Olswang Germany for eight years and in the Capital Transaction Practice Group of an international law firm in New York.

Photo of Andrea C. Maciejewski Andrea C. Maciejewski

Andrea C. Maciejewski designs and implements privacy and security programs for clients of all sizes – from Fortune 500s to start ups – and in all sectors, including digital entertainment, marketing, online education, retail, and consumer goods. Andrea helps companies navigate the intricacies

Andrea C. Maciejewski designs and implements privacy and security programs for clients of all sizes – from Fortune 500s to start ups – and in all sectors, including digital entertainment, marketing, online education, retail, and consumer goods. Andrea helps companies navigate the intricacies of multi-jurisdictional compliance programs as well as compliance with sector-specific data privacy and security laws. Andrea offers clients practical legal counsel, striving to understand the underlying business model and provide strategies that manage costs and risks, while attempting to maintain the businesses operations.

Her practice includes international data privacy laws and regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and China’s Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”), as well as U.S. federal and state data privacy laws, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). Some of the specialized documents Andrea drafts include data processing addendums, intracompany agreements, cross-border transfer mechanisms, privacy policies, privacy impact assessments, and data inventories. She has experience in U.S. and multi-national record retention practices, and frequently counsels on updating those practices for compliance with new privacy laws.

Additionally, Andrea provides expert counsel on data concerns unique to video games, eSports, and mobile gaming.