News · noyb - European Center for Digital Rights EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

"Privacy Shield 2.0"? - First Reaction by Max Schrems

Privacy Shield Monitoring
Mar 25, 2022 Source

How it connects

Related across sources

Case Law CJEU - C-311/18 - Facebook Ireland and Schrems GDPRhub Literature Challenges of Cloud Data Privacy in Surveillance: Legal, Technical, and Ethical Implications IJARCCE Literature A Commercial Ceasefire: Why the EU-US Data Privacy Framework Cannot Survive Schrems III Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) Enforcement NAIH fines online store HUF 15M for transparency and Article 12(1) GDPR violations NAIH (Hungary) Guidance Opinion 14/2026 on the Europrivacy certification criteria regarding their approval by the Board as European Data Protection Seal pursuant to Article 42.5 GDPR EDPB Guidance EDPB Work Programme 2026-2027 EDPB

Full text

Data Transfers "Privacy Shield 2.0"? - First Reaction by Max Schrems Today Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President Biden have announced an "agreement in principle" on a new EU-US data sharing system. Factsheet by the European Commission Factsheet by the White House Some facts upfront: There is only a political announcement, not a text that can be analyzed. As far as noyb is informed, such a text does not exist yet and will take a couple of months to be drafted. This is probably meant by an "agreement in principle": lawyers still have to find solutions to the problems raised by the Court of Justice (CJEU). So far no fully functioning solutions were delivered despite two years of discussions. What noyb hears is that the US is not planning to change its surveillance laws, but only foreseen executive reassurances (using EU language like "proportionality"). It is unclear how this would remotely pass the test by the CJEU, as US surveillance was already held not to be "proport

Original document at the source noyb.eu

Similar Content