The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

  • Background. Company A is an EEA controller that utilizes Company Z, a processor based in Country Q. Company Z does not have a legal presence

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as state procedural rules, permit parties to a lawsuit to conduct discovery, in search of information and documents that may be relevant to the litigation. Parties can issue requests for documents, information (called interrogatories), and admissions of fact to other parties to the lawsuit; parties may use

After Europe blazed the trail by passing the sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in 2016, California followed closely in the footsteps of European efforts by passing the most comprehensive data privacy law in the United States, the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”). Effective January 1, 2020, the CCPA provided a number of obligations

Some organizations are confused as to the impact that pseudonymization has (or does not have) on a privacy compliance program. That confusion largely stems from ambiguity concerning how the term fits into the larger scheme of modern data privacy statutes. For example, aside from the definition, the CCPA only refers to “pseudonymized” on one occasion

It depends on the purpose for which a transfer impact assessment (TIA) is created. It is unlikely that the attorney-client privilege would apply to a TIA that is created, and used, to satisfy the requirements of the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

The attorney-client privilege in the United States refers to a judicially recognized ability for

The term “Transfer Impact Assessment” or “TIA” is relatively new to the world of data privacy. Indeed, according to one widely used legal database the term was not referenced within any academic journals or secondary sources until 2021.[1] The term has come to refer to a written analysis, conducted by a controller or a

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”[1] and, as a result,

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
Transfers from a European Data Subject: Data Subject→Controller (US)→Processor (US)
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”1 and, as a result,

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
Transfers from a European Data Subject: Data Subject→Controller (US)→Controller (non-EEA)
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”1 and, as a result,

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
Transfers from a European Data Subject: Data Subject→Controller (US)→Controller (US)
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”[1] and, as a result,