Take-Aways (AI)
  • DOJ publishes white­pa­per on the US CLOUD Act with pur­po­se, scope and FAQ on 29 questions.
  • CLOUD Act allo­ws US aut­ho­ri­ties to access data at US com­pa­nies or their for­eign sub­si­dia­ries wit­hout legal assi­stance proceedings.
  • Pro­vi­ders can con­test sur­ren­der; pro­tec­tion depends on the exi­stence of a bila­te­ral imple­men­ta­ti­on agree­ment with the USA.
  • In the absence of an imple­men­ta­ti­on agree­ment, the court deci­des more free­ly on amen­ding or revo­king the order by means of a com­mon-law comi­ty analysis.

The U.S. Depart­ment of Justi­ce DOJ has issued a White­pa­per on the US CLOUD Act published. The white­pa­per dis­cus­ses the pur­po­se and scope of the US CLOUD Act and inclu­des an FAQ on 29 com­mon questions.

CLOUD Act” stands for “Cla­ri­fy­ing Lawful Over­se­as Use of Data Act.” The CLOUD Act came into force in the USA on March 23, 2018 and sup­ple­ments the Stored Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Act (SCA). At its core, the CLOUD Act allo­ws U.S. aut­ho­ri­ties to access data held or under the cus­t­ody or con­trol of U.S. com­pa­nies or for­eign sub­si­dia­ries wit­hout see­king legal redress. The affec­ted pro­vi­der can defend its­elf against the han­do­ver, wher­eby it depends on whe­ther the data is loca­ted in a coun­try that has con­clu­ded a so-cal­led “exe­cu­ti­on agree­ment” with the USA. If this is the case, the com­pa­ny can demand that the order be lifted if the user is not a U.S. citi­zen or resi­dent and the­re is a sub­stan­ti­al risk that the pro­vi­der will vio­la­te for­eign law by releasing the data. In the absence of a bila­te­ral agree­ment bet­ween the sta­te in que­sti­on and the U.S., the pro­vi­der con­cer­ned can also chall­enge the sur­ren­der order. In this case, the court con­ducts a so-cal­led com­mon-law comi­ty ana­ly­sis and deci­des more free­ly whe­ther to modi­fy or lift the order.