Archive: 2016

1
Safe Harbor 2.0 is Coming (This Week)
2
Drones May Have Limited Range, But Regulatory Coordination Doesn’t Have To
3
Your Money Is No Good Here: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That an Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Complete Relief Does Not Moot an Individual’s Claims, but Questions Remain

Safe Harbor 2.0 is Coming (This Week)

US companies will need to take action to comply with any new agreement

By Bruce J. Heiman, Ignasi Guardans, Etienne Drouard

As we explained in detail in our Explanatory note of October 6 2015, and the webinar that followed held on October 9, the Schrems decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) invalidated the US Safe Harbor program, and as a result of that most transfers of European personal data to the US done under that scheme became potentially illegal, if not covered by other legal options as described below.

Subsequently, Europe’s national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), through the so called Article 29 Working Group, declared their intention not to bring enforcement actions against such EU – US data transfers before February 1, in order to give the US and EU time to reach a new agreement that could meet the objections raised by the CJEU.

Read More

Drones May Have Limited Range, But Regulatory Coordination Doesn’t Have To

By Former Rep. James T. Walsh, contributor, and Rod Hall (Originally published in The Hill)

Safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace is one of the foremost policy challenges of 2016. But while Capitol Hill has largely focused on the regulatory efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), developments overseas will also shape the future of the dynamic UAS industry in the year ahead.

Just before the end of the year, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) released its technical framework for UAS regulation across the 28 member states of the European Union. The framework will serve as the basis for rule-making activities at the EU and member-state levels in 2016 and 2017.

Read More

Your Money Is No Good Here: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That an Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Complete Relief Does Not Moot an Individual’s Claims, but Questions Remain

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Jennifer J. Nagle, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, and Matthew Lowe

On January 20, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez regarding Rule 68 offers of judgment.[1]  The Court held that a defendant cannot moot a case by merely offering complete relief to a plaintiff but left unanswered whether a defendant may do so by actually providing complete relief.  Nor did the Court reach the question of whether a plaintiff can continue to seek to represent a putative class when his or her individual claims are mooted before a class is certified.

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.