July 22, 2014

The View from London: European Parliament Publishes Proposal for Revised Draft of EU Data Protection Regulation

The European Parliament recently published a report on the European Commission’s draft of a new EU Data Protection Regulation.  The report, which includes the European Parliament’s proposal for a revised draft of the Regulation runs to an astounding 215 pages.  The Parliament’s report is certain to fuel debate for months as industry readers and other stakeholders parse the proposed changes.

Many of the changes proposed by the Parliament substantially increase the burden on businesses by tightening up existing bases for using personal data.  The treatment of user consent is particularly alarming.  The Commission had originally proposed that companies would not be able to rely on consent where there was an “clear imbalance” of power between the data controller and the data subject, citing as an example an employer-employee relationship.  The Parliament proposes to expand this to situations where the data controller is in a “dominant market position” with respect to the goods or services in question, or where changes in terms of service are “non-essential” and not accepting the change would mean that the data subject would have to give up using an online service in which he or she had “invested significant time.”

On the other hand, some revisions proposed by the Parliament provide useful clarification and even in some cases cut back the burden that the Commission’s draft would impose on businesses.  For example, the Commission’s draft proposes that part of the “right to be forgotten” includes an obligation on a company to try to pull back personal data from third parties when a user exercises his or her right to be forgotten.  The Parliament’s draft limits the “pull back” obligation to situations where the transfer of the data to the third parties was “without legal justification” (which means that it never should have happened in the first place).  Companies will certainly welcome that change if the right to be forgotten survives in the final version of the Regulation.

We will be analyzing the complete 215 page report in further detail in subsequent blog posts.   Stay tuned.

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Susan L. Foster, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Business Attorney

Susan is qualified in England and Wales as well as California, and has experience practicing law in both the United States and the United Kingdom. She has been based in Mintz Levin’s London office since September 2007, and worked in the United Kingdom for another international law firm from 2001 to 2004.

Susan works with clients primarily on licensing, collaborations, and commercial matters in the fields of clean tech, high tech, mobile media, and life sciences. She has represented a broad range of clients, from start-up companies to international industry leaders, and has...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.