European Commission Takes Steps To Address Criticism Of Slow Privacy Investigations
The European Commission has taken steps to address the ongoing criticism of the slow-moving privacy investigation process and the resulting fines put in place by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC).
The new rules announced on Tuesday are designed to help privacy watchdogs move quicker and work more efficiently on cross-border cases. At present, some critics feel that the investigations take too long and the fines are too light, not serving as a deterrent and disrupting the GDPR’s mission of increased privacy for individuals.
The GDPR, which came into effect in 2018, seeks to give individuals greater control over their own data and how it is used.
The new proposed regulations would require the main regulatory body to provide a summary of core issues to other agencies, allowing for effective feedback on initial developments.
Related: European Commission Sets the Agenda: ESG Reporting Requirements in the EU and the U.S.
Deadlines for cooperation between cross-border teams and dispute resolution would be set. Complainants would have the right to be heard should an investigation take place, and companies under investigation would also have the right to be heard and have access to the file.
However, the new rules have already come under fire from privacy activist Max Schrems, who believes they would “strip citizens of existing rights” rather than protect them. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a tech lobbying group, stated that the rules were incomplete as companies do not have access to a fair hearing with a realistic timeframe.
It remains to be seen whether these new regulations will bring an end to stalling investigations and unsatisfactory fines. While the European Commission appears to be taking steps to increase transparency and speed up the process, these newly announced regulations may fall short of offering a complete solution.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand