Fran­ce: Dawn Raid; fine of EUR 250,000 against Spartoo 

The French super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty CNIL has fined the online com­pa­ny Spar­too SAS EUR 250,000. The fol­lo­wing cri­te­ria were pri­ma­ri­ly rele­vant: The fine frame­work of EUR 20 mil­li­on /4% of annu­al tur­no­ver; that the vio­la­ti­ons lar­ge­ly con­cer­ned pro­vi­si­ons that alrea­dy exi­sted befo­re the

Direc­ti­ve on collec­ti­ve actions: Draft of the Com­mis­si­on and the Council 

The Direc­ti­ve on collec­ti­ve redress for the pro­tec­tion of con­su­mers’ collec­ti­ve inte­rests (“EU Collec­ti­ve Redress Direc­ti­ve”) has gai­ned momen­tum. On June 22, 2020, the Par­lia­ment and the Coun­cil agreed on a revi­sed draft, which is now to be adop­ted by the governments of the mem­ber states.

CNIL fine against Goog­le confirmed 

France’s hig­hest admi­ni­stra­ti­ve court, the Con­seil d’E­tat, upheld the CNIL’s fine against Goog­le on June 19, 2020 (Janu­a­ry 21, 2019, EUR 50 mil­li­on). The Con­seil d’E­tat first con­firms that Goog­le LLC does not have a princi­pal place of busi­ness in the EU or, at the time

Rosen­thal: Data Pro­tec­tion Agree­ment bet­ween Arbi­tra­tors, Par­ties and Par­ty Representatives 

Data pro­tec­tion does not stop at arbi­tra­ti­on. In par­ti­cu­lar, the rights and obli­ga­ti­ons of the par­ties invol­ved under data pro­tec­tion law must be regu­la­ted. For this pur­po­se, David Rosen­thal has deve­lo­ped a tem­pla­te of a data pro­tec­tion agree­ment bet­ween arbi­tra­tors, par­ties, and the arbi­tral tri­bu­nal, which is avail­ab­le under a free license.

U.S. Con­gress enacts legis­la­ti­on to cla­ri­fy scope of over­se­as data warrants 

On March 23, 2018, Donald Trump signed the Cla­ri­fy­ing Law­ful Over­se­as Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act). The Cloud Act cla­ri­fies what was unclear under the Stored Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Act (SCA): elec­tro­nic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders and remo­te com­pu­ting ser­vice pro­vi­ders are expli­ci­tly requi­red to comply,

USA v. Micro­soft: Reply Brief of the USA 

In United Sta­tes v. Micro­soft Cor­po­ra­ti­on, a case pen­ding befo­re the U.S. Supre­me Court invol­ving the release of data stored by a Micro­soft sub­si­dia­ry in Ire­land, the U.S. filed its Reply Brief in respon­se to Microsoft’s petition.