Privacy & Data Protection
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.22.10
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Thirteen Data Protection Authorities have founded the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) in order to work together to improve privacy law enforcement on a global scale. The founders have agreed on an action plan in which they stress the importance of sharing knowledge on the various enforcement mechanisms and existing possibilities to join forces internationally. The public website of the GPEN can be consulted as from September 21, 2010.
Thirteen Data Protection Authorities have founded the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) in order to work together to improve privacy law enforcement on a global scale.
The first negotiations on the GPEN started in March 2010 in Paris. The founders now call on other DPA’s to join and endorse the Action Plan.
The founders have agreed on an Action Plan in which they stress the importance of sharing knowledge on the various enforcement mechanisms and existing possibilities to join forces internationally.
The initiative is motivated by “a recognition that changes in the character and volume of cross-border data flows have elevated privacy risks for individuals and highlighted the need for better co-operation among the authorities charged with providing them protection”.
The members intend to share information about privacy enforcement issues, trends and experiences, to participate in relevant training, to cooperate on outreach activities, to engage in dialogue with relevant private sector organizations on privacy enforcement and outreach issues. They also want to facilitate effective cross-border privacy enforcement in specific matters by creating a contact list of privacy enforcement authorities interested in bilateral cooperation in cross-border investigations and enforcement matters.
It can therefore be hoped that the new network could act as a sounding board for private sector organizations with respect to global privacy enforcement.
Further details can be found on the new website of the GPEN, which is available through the link below.
The current members of the GPEN are:
- Australia: Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner
- Canada: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
- France: Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés
- Germany: Federal Data Protection Commission
- Ireland: Office of the Data Protection Commissioner
- Israel: The Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority
- Italy: Garante Per La Protezione Dei Dati Personali
- Netherlands: Dutch Data Protection Authority
- New Zealand: Office of the Privacy Commissioner
- Spain: Agencia Española de Protección de Datos
- United Kingdom: Information Commissioner’s Office
- United States: Federal Trade Commission
Links: The public website of the GPEN can be consulted as from September 21, 2010 on https://www.privacyenforcement.net
For more information, contact: Frederik Van Remoortel.
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
