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 | 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
