EU and U.S. Reach Agreement on Safe Harbor Replacement: 'EU-U.S. Privacy Shield'
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.02.16
The European Commission (EC) and U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) have been negotiating a new Safe Harbor framework (Safe Harbor) governing the transfer of data from the European Union (EU) to the U.S. for over two years. After invalidation of Safe Harbor in October 2015 by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), EU Member State data protection authorities (DPAs) agreed to hold off on enforcement against companies utilizing Safe Harbor until January 31, 2016, thus imposing a de facto deadline on the framework negotiators to agree on a replacement by that time.
Today, the negotiators reached a deal on the successor framework, named the "EU-U.S. Privacy Shield" (Privacy Shield), to replace the invalidated U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework.
Highlights of the Privacy Shield
Although the details of the arrangement have yet to be released, the EC announced some high-level points regarding the revamped program:
- It will include annual joint review of the program, by EC, DOC, DPAs and the U.S. national security agencies to evaluate whether changes are necessary.
- The EC is satisfied with the transparency and safeguards related to U.S. national security data collection that have now been put in place, including U.S. legislation curbing national security data collection, executive orders, the proposed Judicial Redress Act, and written assurances from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence.
- There will be an ombudsman in the U.S. Department of State who will follow up on referrals from national DPAs regarding EU citizen complaints about national security data use.
- There will be an added stop-gap dispute resolution mechanism in the form of binding arbitration for company data use cases that are not resolved after using other channels (namely direct complaint to company, independent recourse mechanisms, and DPA referral to U.S. authorities).
- There will be new requirements for onward transfers, that will likely require adapting existing contracts with sub-processors.
- EU Commissioner Věra Jourová estimates that it will take approximately three months to have the Privacy Shield in place and ready for use after finalization and ratification in the EU and the U.S.
The Article 29 Working Party (WP29), consisting of the DPAs of all 28 Member States, is scheduled to meet in Brussels on February 3. Commissioner Jourova will discuss the Privacy Shield at that meeting, and seek the further advice of the WP29 on the new framework. We will provide further information after the meeting.
In addition, if the WP29 provides no new "grace period" for companies using the old Safe Harbor framework to legitimize data transfers, U.S. companies will have to rely on other mechanisms until the Privacy Shield becomes effective and companies certify to the terms of the new program. Until that time, the options include:
- EU-approved model contract clauses.
- Binding Corporate Rules (for intra-company transfers only).
Certain other specific derogations that are narrowly interpreted may also apply, including:
- Informed consent of the data subject (though this may not be possible for human resources or other data relating to employees).
- Performance of a contract (e.g., limited to circumstances such as booking a hotel in the U.S. where personal information must be provided to the U.S. entity to fulfill the contract).
- Important public interest grounds (e.g., cooperation between authorities regarding fraud or cartel investigations).
- The vital interest of the data subject (e.g., urgent life or death situations).
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



