Take-Aways (AI)
  • Swiss-US Data Pri­va­cy Frame­work cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on is gene­ral­ly reco­gnized as an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion for the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on, can­tons and com­mu­nes, but the legal respon­si­bi­li­ty of the aut­ho­ri­ties remains.
  • Befo­re trans­fer­ring to US orga­nizati­ons: Veri­fy cer­ti­fi­ca­te sta­tus, note revo­ca­ti­on opti­ons and agree bin­ding exit sce­na­ri­os and stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clauses.

pri­va­tim, the Con­fe­rence of Swiss Data Pro­tec­tion Com­mis­sio­ners, has published recom­men­da­ti­ons on “Trans­fer of per­so­nal data to orga­nizati­ons in the USA on the basis of the Swiss-US Data Pri­va­cy Frame­workpublished (PDF).

The recom­men­da­ti­ons begin by sta­ting that cer­ti­fi­ed orga­nizati­ons must “main­tain an appro­pria­te level oflevel of data pro­tec­tion”. This applies to the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on in accordance with Art. 16 para. 1 FADP and Art. 8 para. 1 DPA. The can­tons often refer to the ade­qua­cy decis­i­ons of the Fede­ral Coun­cil (e.g. Basel-Stadt: § 23 para. 1 lit. a IDG and § 11 para. 1 IDV; Zurich: § 19 lit. a IDG and § 22 para. 1 IDV). 

Accor­din­gly, a Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on accor­ding to the CH-US DPF (DPF) as a rule also accor­ding to the can­to­nal data pro­tec­tion laws as suf­fi­ci­ent:

For public bodies of the can­tons and muni­ci­pa­li­ties, the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on [of ade­qua­te data pro­tec­tion for cer­ti­fi­ed com­pa­nies accor­ding to the Swiss‑U.S. DPF ] is not always direct­ly legal­ly bin­ding, is gene­ral­ly con­side­red to be a suf­fi­ci­ent basis for the reco­gni­ti­on of an ade­qua­te level of data pro­tec­tion for dis­clo­sures and as a pos­si­ble cri­ter­ion for the data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment for cross-bor­der out­sour­cing of data pro­ce­s­sing. Howe­ver, public bodies of can­tons and muni­ci­pa­li­ties remain legal­ly respon­si­ble for the cor­re­spon­ding risk assess­ment in indi­vi­du­al cases.

Howe­ver, it is undis­pu­ted that the DPF stands on feet of clay, in par­ti­cu­lar due to the wea­k­e­ning of the US PCLOB (Pri­va­cy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board) and the review of the appro­pria­ten­ess of the EU-US DPF pen­ding befo­re the Euro­pean Court of Justi­ce (Latom­be v Com­mis­si­on, Rs. T‑553/23).

pri­va­tim the­r­e­fo­re gives three recom­men­da­ti­ons for the Out­sour­cing of data to cer­ti­fi­ed organizations:

  1. Veri­fy: At the time of a plan­ned trans­fer of per­so­nal data to a pri­va­te orga­nizati­on in the USA, the legal situa­ti­on in the area of Swiss-US DPF (https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/list);
  2. Qua­li­ty cer­ti­fi­ca­te: It should be noted that the revo­ca­ti­on or non-rene­wal of thecer­ti­fi­ca­te can be revo­ked by the data reci­pi­ent at any time;
  3. Exit sce­na­rio: If the pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data is out­sour­ced to a Swiss‑U.S. DPF-cer­ti­fi­ed orga­nizati­on, exit sce­na­ri­os must be plan­ned.nes­ses.

The­se recom­men­da­ti­ons are cer­tain­ly cor­rect, and they are in line with what pri­va­te com­pa­nies are also advi­sed to do when export­ing to the USA. It makes sen­se, for exam­p­le, to Agree­ment of the stan­dard con­trac­tu­al clau­ses with the US importer (with the adjust­ments to Switz­er­land that the FDPIC has reque­sted), with direct appli­ca­ti­on or with appli­ca­ti­on on con­di­ti­on that the DPF should no lon­ger be effec­ti­ve for export to the importer.