EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Principles Released
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.01.16
On February 29, the U.S. Department of Commerce published the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield foundational documents, including the framework's updated principles. The European Commission (EC) published the draft adequacy decision for the new framework. While there are no major surprises in the documents, given the earlier press releases, publication will allow companies to begin planning compliance strategies.
For details on the differences between the previous framework (U.S.-EU Safe Harbor) and the new one, please join us on March 9 at Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. for a seminar on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the forthcoming EU Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Crowell & Moring attorneys from our Brussels and D.C. offices will be joined by U.S. Department of Commerce Deputy Assistant Secretary Ted Dean, lead U.S. negotiator for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield; and Oracle Vice President of Global Public Policy and Chief Privacy Strategist, Joseph Alhadeff. The seminar will focus on how the proposed framework/regulations differ from predecessors; adjustments to existing compliance programs that may be necessary to meet the new requirements; and hurdles/risks that may arise.
As for the implementation timeline of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, there remain several steps before the program is operational. The draft EU-U.S. Privacy Shield adequacy decision will now be subject to consultation by a committee of representatives of the EU Member States and their Data Protection Authorities (Article 29 Working Party), which will issue a (non-binding) opinion on April 12-13, 2016. Afterwards, the draft will have to pass the so called "comitology" (approval) process for EC decisions, which according to the EC, may take until June 2016. During that time, the U.S. will finalize the framework and put the agreed upon redress mechanisms in place.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
