New Standard Clauses For Data Transfers To Data Controllers In Non-EU Countries
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.24.05
The Data Protection Directive permits the transfer of personal data outside of the EU in certain circumstances, including where a data exporter (based in the EU) and a data importer (based elsewhere) enter into a written agreement guaranteeing that the data importer will adequately protect all personal data received from the data exporter.
In 2001 the European Commission approved standard contract clauses for use in such a situation. However, the clauses were widely regarded as being too onerous on data exporters. In response to a demand from businesses, the European Commission adopted new alternative standard contract clauses in December 2004 for use in contracts between data controllers.
The key differences between the 2001 and 2004 standard contract clauses relate to the liability of the data exporter for the activities of the data importer: The new standard clauses now impose liability for damage suffered by a data subject directly on the data importer, and the data exporter is now only liable where it has failed to use reasonable efforts to determine that the data importer is able to satisfy its legal obligations under the standard contract clauses.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
