Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Will the EU-Japan Data Transfer Partnership Agreement Have Global Influence?

By Samantha Green
April 01, 2019

On Jan. 23, 2019, the European Union (EU) issued an adequacy decision regarding free flow of sensitive data with Japan. This is the first adequacy agreement since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect last May. With countries around the world examining and strengthening their data protection laws, this agreement could be the first of many.

Under the GDPR, the EU can assess other countries' data security initiatives and, if sufficient, issue an adequacy decision that allows uninhibited data transfer between the EU and the other country. This is no small task, as the European Commission has to research the other country's data security measures and submit a proposal, receive input from the European Data Protection Board, gain approval from all EU countries, and ultimately adopt the parameters of the agreement. The other country also has to agree that the EU's system is adequate.

Overview of Japan Agreement

Since the GDPR has stringent data privacy regulations, it is important for other countries seeking data transfer partnerships with the EU to know what constitutes adequacy. While the other country's system does not need to be the same as the GDPR, it needs to be essentially equivalent to pass the test. To meet this bar, Japan implemented extra safeguards including:

  1. Creating supplementary rules that address the differences between Japan and EU data security measures. These rules are binding on Japanese organizations and enforceable by Japan's regulatory body and courts. While Japan recently updated their privacy laws to provide more individual protections, these supplementary rules were necessary to cover any areas not consistent with the GDPR. For example, one rule supplements the definition of “sensitive data” to include sex life, sexual orientation, and trade union membership status to better reflect the GDPR's protections.
  2. Promising that any personal data obtained for law enforcement or national security will be limited to only what is necessary under the specific circumstances.
  3. Creating a procedure for investigating and resolving complaints that Europeans make about a Japanese organization accessing their personal data. Japan now has an independent agency that can monitor these complaints, called the Personal Information Protection Commission.

Benefits and Challenges

All of these things ensure that data flowing to and from Japan will enjoy protections in line with the principles of the GDPR, thus protecting individual privacy. Business in both Japan and EU countries will also greatly benefit from this partnership, which further strengthens their economic relationship. Benefits from the adequacy decision include:

  • Free and safe data transfers between organizations situated in Japan and EU countries;
  • Direct access to consumers living in Japan and the EU;
  • Data access and rights for EU consumers with data in Japan. This includes the right to find out how organizations use their data, the right to request access to their data, and the ability to change errors; and
  • Potential for global data governance.

However, there may also be some challenges associated with this partnership. For example, Japan may have to deal with data subject access requests (DSARs) — requests individuals can make to any organization to identify, change and/or delete their personal data. While the adequacy decision does not specifically address DSARs, it does ensure that EU consumers will have similar procedures to make complaints about how Japan uses their personal data and seek redress, if necessary.

Another challenge could be ensuring consistent compliance with the terms of the adequacy decision. The EU will be monitoring the situation closely to ensure that Japan satisfies the terms of the agreement. In two years, there will be a joint review to see how well data transfers are operating. This will include a comprehensive review of the adequacy decision and how it was applied in practice for the first two years. Subsequently there must be a review at least every four years. It is unclear what would trigger a review to take place before each four year mark, however, a significant change in Japan's privacy standards or a large data breach would probably cause the need for an earlier review. The EU can even choose withdraw the adequacy decision if Japan's data privacy model changes or anything comes up that affects the data privacy promised under the agreement.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.