Take-Aways (AI)
  • The French CNIL clas­si­fi­ed the use of Goog­le Ana­ly­tics as unlawful on Febru­ary 10, 2022.
  • The decis­i­on is based on NOYB/Max Schrems’ Dal­ma­ti­an com­plaints and dis­cus­sions in a Euro­pean task force.
  • CNIL con­siders Google’s pro­tec­ti­ve mea­su­res to be ina­de­qua­te; the­re is the­r­e­fo­re a risk for affec­ted persons.
  • CNIL pur­sues an abso­lu­te approach against data trans­fers to the USA, in con­tra­dic­tion to EDPB recom­men­da­ti­ons and stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clauses.

After the Data Pro­tec­tion Aut­ho­ri­ty of Austria The French regu­la­to­ry aut­ho­ri­ty CNIL has also Use of Goog­le Ana­ly­tics clas­si­fi­ed as unlawfulThe decis­i­on is based on a com­plaint by NOYB, the NGO of Max Schrems, more pre­cis­e­ly on his 101 “Dal­ma­ti­an” com­plaints. In the frame­work of a task force set up for this pur­po­se, the Euro­pean aut­ho­ri­ties exch­an­ge views on this, with the par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on also of the CNIL.

The CNIL now con­clu­des that no sui­ta­ble safe­guards are curr­ent­ly in place for the trans­fer of data. Alt­hough Goog­le has taken addi­tio­nal mea­su­res to pro­tect the data coll­ec­ted by Goog­le Ana­ly­tics, the­se are not suf­fi­ci­ent. The­re is the­r­e­fo­re a risk for the data sub­jects. For the mea­su­re­ment and ana­ly­sis of Inter­net traf­fic, it is pre­fera­ble to use tools that make do with anony­mous data.

The wor­ding of the CNIL indi­ca­tes that it takes an abso­lu­te approach and does not per­mit the dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data to the U.S. if access by aut­ho­ri­ties can­not be ruled out:

Il exi­ste donc un ris­que pour les per­son­nes uti­li­satri­ces du site fran­çais ayant recours à cet outil et dont les don­nées sont exportées.

Howe­ver, this approach is not in line with the Recom­men­da­ti­ons of the EDSA and with the wor­ding of the cur­rent stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­sesboth of which take into account the likeli­hood of access by the authorities.