While the focus of attention in the world of AI has been the EU AI Act: EU AI Act Agreed – Discerning Data in recent weeks, there have also been some other noteworthy legislative developments. On 22 November 2023, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced to the UK Parliament and passed the first reading in the House of Lords. The Bill seeks to establish a central AI authority (“AI Authority”) to oversee the UK’s regulatory approach to AI. The proposal for an AI Authority comes after the UK Government formally announced a UK AI Safety Institute at the global AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park (summarised here).
Whilst the Bill largely reflects the approach of the UK Government, this is a Private Members’ Bill (“PMB”). PMBs are legislative proposals introduced into one of the UK Houses of Parliament by ‘backbench’ members (members who are not Government Ministers). Most PMBs fail to pass unless the UK Government steps in to support their progress through the legislative process.
Continue reading “UK AI Regulation Bill Proposes New AI Regulator”
Late on Friday (December 8th), the European Union Commission, Parliament and Council concluded its “trilogue” negotiations for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. The summary below is based on the information available to date. It will be some time before the definitive text is finalized and released since it will have to go through various committee stages and its legal language finalized in multiple languages.
Prohibited AI Applications
The following applications of AI will be prohibited:
Continue reading “EU AI Act Agreed”
On 10 July 2023, the European Commission adopted its long-awaited adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the DPF). With immediate effect, the adequacy decision provides a new lawful basis for transfers from the EU to the U.S. This means that companies that participate in the DPF are able to transfer data from the EU to the U.S. without relying on another data transfer mechanism, such as Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) or binding corporate rules (BCRs).
Background to the Adequacy Decision
Pursuant to Article 45(3) of the GDPR, the European Commission has the power, by means of an adequacy decision, to decide that a non-EU country has sufficient standards of data protection to be treated as equivalent to those afforded in the EU.
Continue reading “The European Commission Adopts Adequacy Decision on EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework”
On 4 May 2023, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) delivered its highly anticipated judgement in Österreichische Post (Case C-300/21) on a crucial issue: the extent to which data subjects affected by a breach of the GDPR have a right to compensation for non-material damage under Article 82 GDPR.
The underlying case arose from a data subject in Austria seeking 1,000 EUR ($1,009) in compensation for alleged non-material damages arising from Österreichische Post’s processing of his personal data for the purposes of political advertising. The individual had not consented to the processing and claimed that he felt offended by the fact that an affinity to a certain political party was attributed to him, alongside feelings of great upset, loss of confidence and exposure caused by the retention of his data on these supposed political opinions.
Continue reading “Österreichische Post: The CJEU Specifies the Requirements for Compensation for Breaches of the GDPR”
On 11 May 2023, the European Parliament Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) committees voted by a large majority to adopt a compromise position on the draft text of the proposed AI Act. The AI Act is a landmark legislative proposal set to be one of the first and most significant set of rules on artificial intelligence. This compromise text approved by the Committees makes some key changes to the European Commission’s initial draft of the AI Act, outlined below.
Continue reading “The AI Act Progresses Ahead With Approval of Key European Parliament Committees”
In a recent judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) has confirmed that Data Protection Officers (DPOs) can maintain other tasks and duties within their role, provided they do not result in a conflict of interest. The CJEU also held that the GDPR allows for EU member states to legislate to give greater protection to DPOs against dismissal than those set out in the GDPR.
Background to Ruling
In October 2020, the Federal Labour Court of Germany, Bundesarbeitsgericht, requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU relating to proceedings between X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (X-FAB) and its former DPO (“FC”) to clarify under what circumstances an organisation may be allowed to lawfully dismiss its appointed DPO. FC had been DPO for X-FAB and several related companies within its group and had held the role of chair of the works council and vice-chair of the central works council for a few group companies, alongside the DPO position for those companies. FC had been dismissed by X-FAB in December 2017 at the request of the state officer for data protection and freedom of information of Thüringen, Germany. Subsequently, on the coming into force of the GDPR in May 2018, X-FAB had repeated this dismissal as a precautionary measure. FC sought a declaration by the German courts that he retain the DPO position. X-Fab argued FC’s dismissal was justified, stating “a risk of a conflict of interests” in performing both functions, i.e., as both DPO and chair/vice-chair of the works council, on the grounds of incompatibility between the roles. The courts at both first instance and appeal upheld FC’s claim.
Continue reading “CJEU Rules on Dismissal of DPOs and Conflict of Interest”