Re:Meta Fined $1.3B Over Data Transfers to U.S.
by mananaysiempre on Monday May 22, 2023 @06:38AM
(#36029655)
> [M]eta are relying on SCCs [...] which was recommended by the CJEU from the Schrems II case[.]
An unofficial summary[1] of Schrems II doesn’t quite put it like that: Schrems II invalidated Privacy Shield, did not invalidate SCCs in general, but said that the latter are only valid insofar as they can provide EU-mandated privacy protections given the legal regime of the destination country.
Arguably, a US company is incapable of entering a contract that provides such protections because of the last point: they include judicial review of privacy violations, while US law says that noncitizens don’t have standing to sue over those for surveillance under the FISA mandate.
An unofficial summary[1] of Schrems II doesn’t quite put it like that: Schrems II invalidated Privacy Shield, did not invalidate SCCs in general, but said that the latter are only valid insofar as they can provide EU-mandated privacy protections given the legal regime of the destination country.
Arguably, a US company is incapable of entering a contract that provides such protections because of the last point: they include judicial review of privacy violations, while US law says that noncitizens don’t have standing to sue over those for surveillance under the FISA mandate.
[1] https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C-311/18_-_Schrems...