Sign in
Create FREE Account

Privacy Compliance Management Software Knowledge Base

Data Privacy Education Hub

For free we provide a wealth of knowledge on all things compliance and data privacy. We believe in empowering companies and privacy focused people by creating educational content to help you understand and address privacy, compliance and consent questions that you may have. You can reach out to one of our compliance experts with any questions you may have or inquire about our data privacy software solutions that can save you time and money during your compliance journey. 

Get Started
Book a Demo
Privacy Risks
Privacy Risks
3rd Party risk management service

Audit Requirements in Third-Party Risk Management

3rd party risk management framework

The Significance of TPRM Continuous Improvement: Insights from Captain Compliance

Third Party Risk Management Guide

TPRM Guide

pipl fines

PIPL Fines: What Non-Compliance Can Cost You

The Schrems II case, led by Austrian lawyer Maximillian Schrems, invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield in July 2020. This landmark decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) forced organizations to reevaluate their data transfer practices. Schrems' second high-profile case questioned the use of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for data transfers out of the EU. Consequently, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted measures supplementing transfer tools, and the European Commission issued revised SCCs in 2021. Now, a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework, resembling the defunct Privacy Shield, is under consideration, likely to face further CJEU challenges. The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework - Key Principles and Scope The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework is a significant development aimed at facilitating data flows between the European Union (EU) and the United States while ensuring robust data privacy protection. Adopted by the European Commission (EC) on July 10, 2023, the Framework comes as the third attempt to establish a valid data transfer mechanism between the two regions after the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor and U.S.-EU Privacy Shield were invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2015 and 2020, respectively. The Privacy Principles of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework include: Notice, Choice, Accountability for Onward Transfer: Organizations must inform people about data use, provide control, and ensure purposeful and safeguarded sharing. Security, Data Integrity and Purpose Limitation, Access, and Recourse: The Framework demands secure data handling, legal processing, and cooperation with authorities. Certain U.S. organizations, like those under the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Transportation, can self-certify their compliance with Privacy Principles under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. However, banks and insurers are excluded. The certification process requires public commitment, implementation of privacy policies, and details about data processing and certification scope. A yearly re-certification is mandatory. The Framework provides clarity for EU-U.S. data transfers, impacting other mechanisms like Standard Contractual Clauses and Binding Corporate Rules, offering the same protection. However, the framework's future is uncertain due to potential challenges by privacy activist Max Schrems. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms The monitoring and enforcement mechanisms under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework are essential to ensure that organizations comply with the Privacy Principles and maintain a high level of data privacy protection. The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) plays a significant role in overseeing compliance with the Framework. Overview of the Monitoring Process: The DOC keeps an eye on how organizations follow Privacy Principles. They're always watching for any slip-ups in following these rules. Their mission? Making sure your personal data stays safe, just as the privacy guidelines dictate. Random Spot Checks and Investigations: The DOC keeps a watchful eye on organizations through surprise checks to ensure data privacy is maintained. If someone raises a concern, they investigate and address it promptly. Consequences for Non-Compliant Organizations: Organizations not following the rules may face consequences. Persistent violations could lead to removal from the Framework List, hindering data flow between the EU and U.S. To ensure data privacy protection, the non-compliant organization must also return or delete the personal data it received under the Framework. This action is taken to safeguard the privacy of individuals whose data was transferred to a non-compliant organization. Addressing Past Concerns and Challenges in the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework Addressing Past Concerns: The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework improves upon its predecessors (Safe Harbor, Privacy Shield) and incorporates key privacy principles, enhanced redress mechanisms, and periodic reviews for effectiveness and compliance. Improvements Compared to Predecessors (Safe Harbor, Privacy Shield) The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework is the third attempt to create a stable agreement on data transfers after the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield was invalidated. It incorporates improvements to address the shortcomings of Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield. Privacy Principles: The new framework keeps key privacy ideas from the Privacy Shield‒like notification, choice, and accountability for data transfers, to name a few. All these principles are in place to give folks a clearer picture and more control over their personal info. Redress Mechanisms: The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework empowers EU individuals with a Data Protection Review Court to challenge data misuse, addressing concerns from the Schrems II decision. Periodic Reviews: The new framework will undergo regular reviews by the European Commission, European data protection authorities, and U.S. authorities. These reviews aim to ensure its ongoing effectiveness and alignment with evolving data protection standards. Addressing Concerns Raised in Schrems I and Schrems II Decisions The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework aims to address the concerns raised by the CJEU in both the Schrems I and Schrems II decisions, which led to the invalidation of its predecessors. Schrems I worries: CJEU invalidated Safe Harbor in Schrems I due to privacy concerns. The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework aims to address this with new shields, but doubts remain. Schrems II worries: Schrems II rejected the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield over the insufficient defense against the U.S. government snooping. The new framework promises equal data protection for EU-U.S. transfers but faces doubts about its effectiveness in tackling mass surveillance concerns. Potential Impact on Data Protection and Privacy for EU Citizens The adoption of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework's Adequacy Decision provides EU companies with an additional mechanism to legitimize their transatlantic data transfers, allowing self-certified companies to receive EU personal data without additional transfer safeguards. This may offer more legal certainty for cross-border data transfers and enhance privacy protections for EU citizens' personal data. Max Schrems' Intention to Challenge the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (Schrems III) Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems intends to challenge the new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in a case known as Schrems III. This comes after the European Commission issued the long-awaited adequacy decision for the new Framework on July 10, 2023, following the previous invalidation of both the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor in 2015 and the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield in 2020, based on challenges brought forth by Max Schrems (Schrems I and Schrems II decisions, respectively) Reasons for Challenging the New Framework While specific details of Max Schrems' reasons for challenging the new framework have not been provided in the information given, it can be inferred from previous challenges (Schrems I and Schrems II) that his concerns are likely to revolve around the protection of personal data transferred from the EU to the U.S. U.S. Surveillance Practices: One of the primary concerns raised by Max Schrems in the past has been related to U.S. mass surveillance practices, specifically under programs like "PRISM" or "Upstream" conducted under FISA 702 and EO 12.333. Schrems has argued that these surveillance practices violate the fundamental privacy rights of EU citizens. Inadequate Redress Mechanisms: Another issue raised by Schrems pertains to the lack of effective redress mechanisms for EU citizens whose data is accessed and processed by U.S. intelligence agencies. The invalidation of the Privacy Shield by the CJEU in Schrems II was largely due to the inadequacy of the Ombudsperson mechanism for redress. Lack of Equal Protection: Schrems has also pointed out that U.S. surveillance laws and practices do not offer equal protections for non-U.S. persons, leading to concerns about unequal treatment of EU citizens' personal data. Potential Implications for Data Transfers between EU and U.S. If Max Schrems' challenge (Schrems III) against the new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework is successful, it could have significant implications for data transfers between the EU and the U.S. Disruption of Data Flows: If the new Framework is invalidated, organizations relying on it for data transfers between the EU and the U.S. may face disruptions. This could impact various industries and businesses that depend on seamless cross-border data transfers. Uncertainty for Companies: A successful challenge could create legal uncertainty for companies engaging in data transfers between the EU and the U.S. They might need to explore alternative data transfer mechanisms, such as Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) or Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), which could involve additional compliance burdens. Need for Enhanced Protections: A successful challenge might prompt the EU and the U.S. to engage in further negotiations to address the concerns raised by Schrems and ensure that data transfers between the two regions are conducted with enhanced privacy protections. Legal Uncertainties and Potential Outcomes of Schrems III: The outcome of Schrems III is uncertain, and its potential implications depend on various factors, including the legal arguments presented, the stance of the CJEU, and the willingness of the EU and the U.S. to address the concerns raised. CJEU Decision: The final outcome will ultimately depend on the CJEU's interpretation of the relevant legal issues and its assessment of whether the new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework adequately addresses the privacy concerns raised by Max Schrems. Negotiations between EU and U.S.: If Schrems III results in invalidating the new Framework, it may lead to further negotiations between the EU and the U.S. to establish a revised data privacy framework that satisfies the CJEU's requirements and addresses privacy concerns. Potential Revisions: In the event of a successful challenge, the EU and the U.S. may be compelled to revise their approach to data transfers and establish new safeguards to ensure compliance with EU data protection laws. The Role of European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) in Enforcement European Union Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) play a crucial role in overseeing regional data protection and privacy. They have involvement, authority, and collaborate with U.S. authorities in the following ways: Overseeing Data Protection in the EU: DPAs are independent authorities that make sure organizations follow data protection laws in each EU member state. They supervise how personal data is handled to comply with GDPR and other relevant data protection regulations. Authority to Investigate and Enforce Data Privacy Violations: DPAs can investigate data privacy complaints, audit organizations' data processing, and take corrective action. They issue warnings and impose fines for violations, with the amount depending on the severity of the infringement. Collaboration with U.S. Authorities: DPAs collaborate with U.S. authorities to enforce the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and monitor privacy safeguards for EU data transfers. Impact on Transatlantic Business and Trade The new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework can significantly impact businesses' ability to transfer personal data across the Atlantic. Consider the following key points: Data Transfer Facilitation: The Framework lets EU companies transfer data to U.S. self-certified ones without extra safeguards. This streamlines data flow and benefits transatlantic business. Challenges and Costs for Compliance: The Framework eases data transfers but can bring compliance challenges. Companies must commit to privacy obligations, implement policies, and do regular self-certification, which may require process changes and extra work. Importance of Data Flows for Transatlantic Trade: Data flows are vital for transatlantic trade. Industries rely on cross-border data transfers for various activities. The new Framework's adequacy decision supports data flows and transatlantic business stability. Public Perception and Trust in Data Privacy The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework can influence public perception of data privacy protections in several ways. Some key considerations include: Transparency and Trust: Transparent data transfer mechanisms, such as the Framework's self-certification process, can enhance public trust in organizations handling personal data. When consumers are aware of privacy safeguards and accountability measures, they are more likely to trust companies with their data. Public Perception of Privacy Protection: The public's perception of data protection and privacy is critical to the success of the Framework. A lack of trust in data handling practices or concerns about the misuse of personal information can lead to public scepticism or resistance towards cross-border data transfers. Factors Affecting Public Trust: Various factors can influence public trust in cross-border data transfers, including data breach incidents, media coverage of privacy violations, and the overall level of awareness and education about data protection rights and mechanisms. Closing The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework marks a significant development in transatlantic data privacy, superseding the invalidated Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield. Building upon past lessons, this Framework implements key privacy principles, stronger redress mechanisms, and periodic reviews to secure robust data protection.  Despite these improvements, the Framework faces uncertainty as privacy activist Max Schrems prepares to challenge it, potentially mirroring his previous successful legal battles against its predecessors. A successful challenge could disrupt data flows, creating legal uncertainties for companies, and prompting further EU and U.S. negotiations.  With the outcome of 'Schrems III unclear, businesses, authorities, and individuals alike will closely monitor developments to assess the lasting impact on transatlantic data privacy and business operations. FAQs What is the Schrems II case, and what did it invalidate? The Schrems II case, led by Austrian lawyer Maximillian Schrems, invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield in July 2020. The EU-US Privacy Shield was a data transfer mechanism that allowed organizations to transfer personal data from the EU to the US. What were the concerns raised in Schrems' second case (Schrems II)? Schrems II questioned the use of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for data transfers out of the EU. The primary concern was whether SCCs provided adequate protection for personal data transferred to the US, given the US government's surveillance practices. What measures were taken by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission in response to Schrems II? In response to Schrems II, the EDPB adopted measures supplementing transfer tools, and the European Commission issued revised SCCs in 2021 to address the concerns raised about data transfers. What is the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, and when was it adopted? The EU-US Data Privacy Framework is a development aimed at facilitating data flows between the EU and the US while ensuring robust data privacy protection. It was adopted by the European Commission on July 10, 2023, as the third attempt to establish a valid data transfer mechanism between the two regions after the invalidation of the Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield agreements.

Custom TPRM Strategies by Industry

3rd Party risk management service

TPRM Due Diligence

cookie consent design

Understanding TPRM Due Diligence: A Comprehensive Guide

Access levels for 3rd party data

Types of Access You May Provide to a Third Party in 2024

Understanding ROPA and Third Party Data Processing

Navigating the TPRM Process

3rd Party risk management service

Third-party Risk Management Services: How to Choose the Right Company for You

Positives and negatives of vendor risk management

How to Choose a Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) Framework

PII vs PI: Know What the Differences Are

California Privacy Rights Act Guide

CPRA Compliance Guide

When Will the AI Act Come Into Force? (What You Must Know)

Navigating CCPA Data Mapping: Ensuring Compliance and Data Privacy

contractual-data-safeguards

Securing Success: Contractual Data Safeguards for Robust Data Protection in Business Agreements

Online Privacy Compliance Made Easy

Captain Compliance makes it easy to develop, oversee, and expand your privacy program. Book a demo or start a trial now.

Book a Demo

Data Privacy and Compliance from Superheroes

Copyright © 2025 Captain Compliance | Cookie Transparency Powered By 
730 NW 9th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311 | +1 (954) 408-2192 | heroes@captaincompliance.com