U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Renegotiation Deadline Passes: What Now?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.01.16
Despite intensive last-minute talks over the weekend, U.S. and European Union (EU) negotiators have yet to reach a new agreement for the legitimization of data transfers from Europe to the United States to replace the invalidated U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework (Safe Harbor). On February 1, EU Commissioner Věra Jourová provided a status update at a plenary meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in Brussels. Jourová told the Parliament committee, "I believe the close relationship between the United States and European Union deserves these special efforts. We are close but an additional effort is needed." Negotiators on both sides still hope to find an agreement this week.
In the meantime, the EU Member States' Data Protection authorities (Article 29 Working Party) will meet on February 2 to discuss how to proceed. The meeting will include discussions about investigations and possible suspensions of data transfers which continue based solely on the former Safe Harbor. The authorities will also assess other transfer mechanisms such as EU Standard Contractual Clauses and Binding Corporate Rules, which also have been criticized based on the same concerns relating to U.S. government surveillance.
We will provide additional guidance as it becomes available.
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
