Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Will the EU-Japan Data Transfer Partnership Agreement Have Global Influence?

By Samantha Green
April 01, 2019

On Jan. 23, 2019, the European Union (EU) issued an adequacy decision regarding free flow of sensitive data with Japan. This is the first adequacy agreement since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect last May. With countries around the world examining and strengthening their data protection laws, this agreement could be the first of many.

Under the GDPR, the EU can assess other countries' data security initiatives and, if sufficient, issue an adequacy decision that allows uninhibited data transfer between the EU and the other country. This is no small task, as the European Commission has to research the other country's data security measures and submit a proposal, receive input from the European Data Protection Board, gain approval from all EU countries, and ultimately adopt the parameters of the agreement. The other country also has to agree that the EU's system is adequate.

Overview of Japan Agreement

Since the GDPR has stringent data privacy regulations, it is important for other countries seeking data transfer partnerships with the EU to know what constitutes adequacy. While the other country's system does not need to be the same as the GDPR, it needs to be essentially equivalent to pass the test. To meet this bar, Japan implemented extra safeguards including:

  1. Creating supplementary rules that address the differences between Japan and EU data security measures. These rules are binding on Japanese organizations and enforceable by Japan's regulatory body and courts. While Japan recently updated their privacy laws to provide more individual protections, these supplementary rules were necessary to cover any areas not consistent with the GDPR. For example, one rule supplements the definition of “sensitive data” to include sex life, sexual orientation, and trade union membership status to better reflect the GDPR's protections.
  2. Promising that any personal data obtained for law enforcement or national security will be limited to only what is necessary under the specific circumstances.
  3. Creating a procedure for investigating and resolving complaints that Europeans make about a Japanese organization accessing their personal data. Japan now has an independent agency that can monitor these complaints, called the Personal Information Protection Commission.

Benefits and Challenges

All of these things ensure that data flowing to and from Japan will enjoy protections in line with the principles of the GDPR, thus protecting individual privacy. Business in both Japan and EU countries will also greatly benefit from this partnership, which further strengthens their economic relationship. Benefits from the adequacy decision include:

  • Free and safe data transfers between organizations situated in Japan and EU countries;
  • Direct access to consumers living in Japan and the EU;
  • Data access and rights for EU consumers with data in Japan. This includes the right to find out how organizations use their data, the right to request access to their data, and the ability to change errors; and
  • Potential for global data governance.

However, there may also be some challenges associated with this partnership. For example, Japan may have to deal with data subject access requests (DSARs) — requests individuals can make to any organization to identify, change and/or delete their personal data. While the adequacy decision does not specifically address DSARs, it does ensure that EU consumers will have similar procedures to make complaints about how Japan uses their personal data and seek redress, if necessary.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.