Beyond GDPR: How Brexit Affects Other Data Laws

Jun 20, 2019

By Dawn Ingley

See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below

View Patrick Law Group, LLC

Since the United Kingdom (UK) voted in June, 2016, to exit the European Union (i.e., “Brexit”), the question in many minds has been, “Whither GDPR?”  After all, the UK was a substantial contributor to this legislation. The UK has offered assurances that it intends to, in large part, harmonize its data protection laws with GDPR. However, GDPR isn’t the only law or regulation which governs data protection in the European Union. And in some cases, the answers for the UK in a post-Brexit world are far less clear.

Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR)

The PECR rules address marketing, cookies and electronic communications such as emails, texts and faxes. PECR is established within the UK framework of laws and so even after Brexit takes effect, it would continue to apply to the UK. The issue, however, is that PECR will be replaced, most likely in the next two years, by the ePrivacy Regulation, which is designed to be a complement to GDPR. The ePrivacy Regulation addresses personal privacy across electronic communications in a more specific manner than does GDPR. Specifically:

  • Metadata associated with online communications content must be anonymized or deleted if users do not provide consent to it being retained.
  • With limited exceptions, online web surfers must be given the option of tiered cookie policies in which consent may be withdrawn at any time.
  • It clarifies that it applies to machine-to-machine communications that may typically occur in an IoT setting.

How and whether the UK chooses to incorporate the ePrivacy Regulation into its set of data protection laws depends in large part upon whether the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is ratified. If the ePrivacy Regulation were to take effect during any Brexit transition period as set forth in the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, then the new regulation would automatically become part of UK law. However, if the ePrivacy Regulation were not to be finalized during the transition period outlined in the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, then a likely scenario is that the UK retains PECR—which creates complications in that it is based on GDPR’s predecessor legislation, the EU Directive.

Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems (NIS)

NIS provides a set of parameters aimed at securing critical network and other technology systems. It is aimed primarily at digital service providers such as search engines, cloud computing services and online marketplaces. As with PECR, NIS laws are specifically set forth in UK laws, and so will continue to apply after Brexit. One important caveat exists, however—if the UK is unable to negotiate a Brexit deal prior to the October 31, 2019, deadline, then UK companies may be required to comply with adhere to the locally implemented NIS laws of other member states in which it provides products or services.

Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS)

eIDAS regulates European electronic identification, authentication and trust services. As eIDAS isn’t incorporated into UK laws or regulations, eIDAS will cease to exist for purposes of the UK. The UK government has indicated recently that it intends to implement its own identification/authentication rules once Brexit takes effect.

Uncertainty around eIDAS applicability is particularly concerning, in that its very purpose was to create standardization across technologies such as electronic signatures and related trust services. Ideally, this critical need for standardization will drive British authorities to closely model their own regulations after eIDAS.

Taken as a whole, the impact of Brexit upon business both within and outside the EU is considerable, and these uncertainties make a large problem even more complex. For those nations (and more specifically, businesses) outside of the EU, it is likely that they will need to develop one playbook for doing business in and with the businesses in the EU, and another playbook for dealing with the UK. Indeed, the playbooks will overlap in some respects, but even if just viewing these issues through the lens of data protection, Brexit creates an entirely new scenario in which the UK is fundamentally its own country with its own rules.


DHS Cybersecurity Arm Directs Executive Agencies to Develop Vulnerability Disclosure Policies

On November 27, 2019, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released for public comment a draft of Binding Operational Directive 20-01, Develop and Publish a Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (the “Directive”).

Open Internet Advocates Rejoice: Ninth Circuit Finds Web Scraping of Publicly Accessible Data Likely Does Not Violate CFAA

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed open internet advocates a big win by upholding the right of a data analytics startup to use automated bots to scrape publicly available data.

The ABA Speaks on AI

By Jennifer Thompson | Earlier this week, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) House of Delegates, charged with developing policy for the ABA, approved Resolution 112 which urges lawyers and courts to reflect on their use (or non-use) of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the practice of law, and to address the attendant ethical issues related to AI.

Is Anonymized Data Truly Safe From Re-Identification? Maybe not.

By Linda Henry | Across all industries, data collection is ubiquitous. One recent study estimates that over 2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created every day, and over 90% of the data in the world was generated over the last two years.

FTC Settlement Reminds IoT Companies to Employ Prudent Software Development Practices

By Linda Henry | Smart home products manufacturer D-Link Systems Inc. (D-Link) has reached a proposed settlement with the Federal Trade Commission after several years of litigation over D-Link’s security practices.

Beyond GDPR: How Brexit Affects Other Data Laws

By Dawn Ingley | Since the United Kingdom (UK) voted in June, 2016, to exit the European Union (i.e., “Brexit”), the question in many minds has been, “Whither GDPR?” After all, the UK was a substantial contributor to this legislation. The UK has offered assurances that that it intends to, in large part, harmonize its data protection laws with GDPR.

San Francisco Says The Eyes Don’t Have It: Setting Limits on Facial Recognition Technology

By Jennifer Thompson | On May 14, 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-1 to approve a proposal that will ban all city agencies, including law enforcement entities, from using facial recognition technologies in the performance of their duties.

NYC’s Task Force to Tackle Algorithmic Bias: A Study in Inertia

By Linda Henry | In December, 2017 the New York City Council passed Local Law 49, the first law in the country designed to address algorithmic bias and discrimination occurring as a result of algorithms used by City agencies.

U.S. Lawmakers Want Companies to Check their Bias

By Linda Henry | Although algorithms are often presumed to be objective and unbiased, technology companies are under increased scrutiny for alleged discriminatory practices related to their use of artificial intelligence.

The Weight of “GDPR Lite”

By Dawn Ingley | In June, 2018, California’s legislature took the first steps to ensure that the state’s approach to data privacy was trending more closely to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the de facto global industry standard for data protection. Though legislators have acknowledged that further refinements to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will be necessary in the coming months, its salient requirements are known.