The United Kingdom’s new, bold approach to international data transfers

The Right Honourable John Whittingdale OBE MP, the UK’s Minister of State for Media and Data
Joe Jones, Head of Data Adequacy, Data Policy Directorate, Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
Rebecca Cousin, Partner, Slaughter and May

Chairs: Valerie Taylor, Consultant, & Stewart Dresner, Chief Executive, Privacy Laws & Business

Related Article:

• The UK’s new, bold approach to international data transfers. By UK Minister for Media and Data, John Whittingdale MP - PL&B UK Report March 2021.

More details

The United Kingdom has left the European Union but is still tied in many ways to the legal culture from which the GDPR has emerged. How will the tension be resolved of the UK government wanting to be regarded by the EU as adequate, but also wanting to forge relationships with many other countries whose privacy laws are quite different. This situation will inevitably lead to the UK interpreting “essentially equivalent” in a more flexible way than the EU.

The EU’s work on promoting free and safe data flows

Bruno Gencarelli, Head of Unit – International Data Flows and Protection, European Commission

Chairs: Laura Linkomies, Editor, & Stewart Dresner, Chief Executive, Privacy Laws & Business

Related Articles:

• EU’s new SCCs ease legal international transfers - PL&B International Report June 2021
• European Commission publishes new Standard Contractual Clauses - PL&B International Report June 2021
• EU Commission issues draft adequacy decision on South Korea - PL&B International Report June 2021
• EU ready to intensify talks on a new EU-US Privacy Shield - PL&B International Report April 2021

More details

Bruno Gencarelli has the pivotal role in investigating and reviewing the countries which currently have an adequacy declaration and those which are applying for an adequacy declaration for the first time.

The spotlight will certainly be on the United Kingdom where the current data protection law has the designation as the UK GDPR. But if the EU did not accept the UK, then which other country would pass the test?

We understand that “essential equivalence” does not mean a carbon copy of the EU GDPR but what are the limits of divergence? What can be learned from the European Commission’s decision on South Korea to help understand about how the review process might work for other countries?