Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Operational Security //

Compliance

2/7/2019
09:50 AM
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%

Google's GDPR Fine: What It Means for Jurisdictional Arbitrage

In the wake of France's recent euro 50 million GDPR fine against Google, enterprises should consider GDPR-enforcement considerations when determining the base of their EU operations.\r\n\r\n

When large organizations decide where to base their operations, a jurisdiction's data-regulation enforcement could become as significant a consideration as its tax treatment, if the EU's first multi-million-Euro GDPR fine is any indication.

On January 21, France's Data Protection Authority (DPA) -- the National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) -- issued a €50 million (US$56.7 million) fine against Google for unlawfully processing user data, "particularly for ads personalization purposes."

Lawyers and industry pundits have long anticipated Google getting slapped with a GDPR fine at some point -- paricularly since None of Your Business, a data-privacy organization operated by way of activist and serial litigant Max Schrems, filed the relevant GDPR complaint against Google on May 25, 2018 -- the day GDPR went into effect. What may have been unanticipated -- and what matters more -- is where the fine came from.

No such Irish luck Google Ireland Ltd. has long existed as Google's headquarters for the EMEA region (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa) to satisfy the requirements of a tax-shelter mechanism. Incidentally, it is also generally considered Google's EU headquarters for data-protection purposes. Normally, per GDPR's "one-stop shop" rubric, the DPA of the nation where the entity's operations are directed will typically be the enforcing party. In this case, however, the CNIL determined that as of the day it began proceedings against Google, Google's Irish subsidiary "did not have a decision-making power on the processing operations carried out in the context of the operating system Android and the services provided by [Google] in relation to the creation of an account during the configuration of a mobile phone."

No doubt as part of maintaining the headquarters status of its Irish subsidiary for tax purposes, Google naturally designated the same subsidiary as its headquarters for data-protection enforcement purposes -- and GDPR apparently caught the tech giant with its pants down. While Google Ireland Ltd. may have been actively controlling and even complying with other GDPR-related data and data activities, CNIL charged that Google's data practices involving Android settings were effectively controlled from the US -- bypassing Ireland and all other EU member states. And, indeed, the initial complaint in this case was filed against US-based Google LLC.

In a vacuum, all these factors put GDPR-enforcement jurisdiction up for grabs. As the complaint was filed in France, France's CNIL handled it.

"The CNIL [contacted] other EU DPAs, including the Irish DPA, in order to determine whether any other DPA was the lead authority and should pursue the investigation and enforcement," Deborah Shinbein Howitt, director at Denver law firm Lewis Bess Williams & Reese, told Security Now. "[N]either the Irish Data Protection Commission nor any other EU DPA considered itself to be the lead supervisory authority for the US entity Google LLC, so the CNIL was then clear to proceed."

Does member-state jurisdiction matter?
In a perfect rule-of-law world, untainted by individual human prejudices and feelings, the dictates of GDPR itself (variances between individual member-state data-privacy and data-protection laws enacted to enable or complement GDPR notwithstanding) would be evenly enforced in a consistent manner across all EU member-state DPAs. (See GDPR: Broad, Complex & Coming Soon.)

But this is not a perfect world. Some member states are more prickly than others when it comes to data privacy. Shinbein Howitt particularly points to Germany, among others, as having a reputation for being stricter about both data-privacy rulemaking and data-privacy enforcement. Austria, for its part, is noted for being the only EU member state to reject GDPR for not going far enough; Austria was also the first country to publicly issue a GDPR fine -- against a small business for not providing sufficient notice that a CCTV security camera was recording part of a public way. (See: GDPR Fines: Some Bark, Little Bite.)

France, meanwhile, is far from best friends with Google -- and may feel that Google owes her. Nineteen months ago, a French court ruled in Google's favor against the French government in a back-taxes case worth approximately €1.11 billion ($1.27 billion) -- a case that, incidentally, have arisen from Google's EMEA tax-avoidance mechanism. French politicos may well feel that Google owes France its due one way or another.

"Companies often establish their headquarters in a certain location for tax reasons or other favorable regulation. At this time, it seems that companies may wish to start taking data-privacy regulation into consideration when making these decisions as well," said Shinbein Howitt. "Considering the magnitude of potential GDPR fines, particularly for large companies, the consequences of choosing a location for privacy reasons could be as significant as the choices often made to minimize tax liability."

Indeed, for certain violations of GDPR, the maximum fine is the higher of either €20 million or 4% of the entity's annual revenue. Because Google is, well, Google, the latter very definitely applies. While the €50 million fine represents only a drop in Google's bucket, CNIL could conceivably fine Google 90 times as much based on Google's past four quarters.

Related posts:

—Joe Stanganelli is managing director at research and consulting firm Blackwood King LC. In addition to being an attorney and consultant, he has spent several years analyzing and writing about business and technology trends. Follow him on Twitter at @JoeStanganelli.

(Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational, educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Neither this nor other articles here constitute legal advice or the creation, implication or confirmation of an attorney-client relationship. For actual legal advice, personally consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.)

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.