United States: What Does The European Court Of Justice's Invalidation Of The U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework Mean For U.S.-Based Multinational Employers?

Last Updated: October 8 2015
Article by Philip L. Gordon and Tahl Tyson

In a landmark decision that will dramatically affect thousands of U.S. companies that transfer personal data from the European Union ("EU") to the United States, the European Union Court of Justice ("ECJ") yesterday invalidated the Safe Harbor Framework, which had permitted U.S. companies to comply with EU restrictions on the transfer of personal data outside the EU.   

More than 4,000 companies, primarily U.S.-based multinationals, currently rely on the Framework, an agreement forged years ago between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission (the "Commission") to permit the transfer of personal data.  The ECJ's decision, dated October 6, 2015, throws current procedures by these companies into question, and almost certainly will spur ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and the EU to develop a replacement.  In the meantime, U.S.-based multinational employers will need to consider their alternatives, as discussed in detail below, to lawfully transfer the personal data of EU employees to the United States.

Brief Overview of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor

The European Union Data Protection Directive (the "Directive") is the EU-level law governing the protection of "personal data," which encompasses any individually identifiable information about a natural person.  The Directive generally prohibits the transfer of personal data to a country outside the EU unless the receiving country ensures an "adequate level of protection" for the personal data. The Directive also provides that the Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection either based on that country's (a) national data protection laws, or (b) international commitments.

In 2000, the Commission issued a determination (the "Safe Harbour Decision") that while U.S. national law did not ensure an adequate level of protection for personal data according to European standards, the Safe Harbor Framework, which had recently been negotiated between the Commission and the Commerce Department, met that standard. The Safe Harbor Framework had been negotiated to bridge the differences in legal frameworks and provide a streamlined and cost-effective means for U.S. organizations to satisfy the Directive's "adequacy" requirement.  Under the Safe Harbor Framework, U.S. businesses wishing to receive personal data from the EU were required to (i) post a Safe Harbor Privacy Policy in which they represented their intention to adhere to the seven Safe Harbor Principles designed to protect the data, (ii) submit a self-certification form through the Commerce Department's Safe Harbor web site, and (iii) pay the required fee.  The Federal Trade Commission was primarily responsible for enforcing the Safe Harbor Framework.

Legal Challenge to the Safe Harbor Framework

In 2012, a young Austrian by the name of Max Schrems was studying law for a semester at Santa Clara University, when he started intensive data privacy activism focused on Facebook's handling of the personal data of its EU users. Among his many actions, Schrems lodged a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner on the grounds that Edward Snowden's leaks of data gathered by U.S. intelligence through the "Prism Program" proved that the United States fails to provide sufficient protection for personal data transferred from the EU against covert government surveillance (notably by the National Security Agency). The Irish Data Protection Commissioner ("DPC") resisted and ultimately rejected Schrems' complaint, primarily on the ground that as a national level data protection authority its hands were essentially tied by the Commission's adequacy determination (and that Schrems' complaint was "frivolous and vexatious.").

The case then went to the High Court of Ireland, which agreed that there was nothing for the DPC to investigate given that the Commission already had determined that the Safe Harbor regime provided adequate data protection. The High Court referred to the ECJ the issue whether the Commission's adequacy determination remained valid. 

Next, the Advocate General, who is appointed by the ECJ, issued a non-binding opinion recommending that the ECJ (i) invalidate the Commission's Safe Harbor adequacy determination because of alleged indiscriminate surveillance by the U.S., and (ii) hold that, because of the importance of national authorities in the protection of individuals' data protection rights, national regulators can investigate an EU citizen's complaint and block a data transfer where the regulator is satisfied that the third country will not adequately protect the fundamental data protection rights of individuals.

The ECJ's Decision Invalidating the Safe Harbor

As the starting point for its October 6 decision, the ECJ construed the Directive's standard requiring that a third country's laws "ensure an adequate level of protection" for personal data.  According to the ECJ, this standard requires that the third country's laws and international commitments provide a level of protection for "the private lives and basic freedoms and rights of individuals" that is "essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union by virtue of [the] Directive." The ECJ scrutinized the Safe Harbor Framework and found it failed to meet this standard with respect to enforcement, access to personal data by intelligence agencies, and the ability of EU citizens to enforce their rights. 

First, the ECJ implicitly questioned the rigor of the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement of the Safe Harbor.  The ECJ stated that because the Safe Harbor relied on self-certification, the viability of the Framework depended on "effective detection and supervision mechanisms" to protect fundamental rights "in practice."  However, the ECJ pointed to a finding in a report on the Safe Harbor prepared by the Commission in 2013 in the wake of the Snowden's disclosures and presented to the European Parliament that "in practice, a significant number of certified companies did not comply, or did not comply fully, with the safe harbour principles."

The ECJ also expressed serious concern that the Safe Harbor permitted U.S. intelligence agencies to collect substantial quantities of personal data of EU citizens from companies that had certified to the Safe Harbor, including many of the most well-known Internet companies.  In the ECJ's words, the Safe Harbor Framework "lays down that 'national security, public interest, or law enforcement requirements' have primacy over the safe harbour principles, primacy pursuant to which self-certified United States organisations receiving personal data from the European Union are bound to disregard those principles without limitation where they conflict with those requirements. . . ."  From the ECJ's perspective, the collection of EU personal data by U.S. intelligence agencies, as revealed by Snowden's leaks, demonstrated that this structural flaw undermined the fundamental rights of EU citizens.  In this regard, the ECJ pointed to the following finding in the Commission's 2013 report:  "'all companies involved in the PRISM programme, and which grant access to U.S. authorities to data stored and processed in the [United States], appear to be Safe Harbour certified' and that '[t]his has made the Safe Harbour scheme one of the conduits through which access is given to US intelligence authorities to collecting personal data initially processed in the [European Union]'."

Finally, the ECJ relied on its conclusion that the Safe Harbor Framework did not provide EU residents with sufficient means to exercise their data protection rights under the Directive or to obtain judicial review of alleged violations.  In this regard, the ECJ noted the finding in the Commission's 2013 report that the Safe Harbor provides "no opportunities for either EU or U.S. data subjects to obtain access, rectification or erasure of data, or administrative or judicial redress with regard to collection and further processing of their personal data taking place under the U.S. surveillance programmes."

What Does the ECJ's Decision Mean for U.S. Multinational Employers Certified to the Safe Harbor?

For years, U.S. multinational employers have centralized their global human resources data in databases located in the U.S. to facilitate global workforce management.  With the advent of cloud computing, many of these multinational companies have turned to cloud service providers—including, for example, human resources information systems ("HRIS") providers, payroll administrators, and on-line applicant tracking providers—located in the United States to house these centralized databases.  To the extent these employers have relied on the Safe Harbor Framework to "ensure an adequate level of protection" for the personal data of EU applicants and current and former employees, the ECJ's decision obviously means employers will need to adopt alternative measures to meet the required standard for the protection of personal data received from the EU.

Alternatives to Safe Harbor Certification

At this point, two principal alternatives are available, each of which presents its own challenges.  First, employers can consider using the "Standard Contractual Clauses" ("SCCs") approved by the European Commission.  These clauses are embedded in a data transfer contract between the EU-based subsidiary (the "data exporter") and the U.S. parent corporation ("data importer").  Second, employers could consider relying on binding corporate rules ("BCRs").

Standard Contractual Clauses

SCCs (also referred to as "Model Clauses") can be unwieldy, administratively burdensome, and slow to implement.  The parties to these agreements cannot modify the SCCs, in any respect, to address any factual circumstances specific to their relationship.  In addition, the parties are required to complete a form appendix to the SCCs that describes the data transfer in substantial detail, including the categories of data to be transferred and the purposes for which the transferred data will be processed.  When the data importer needs to import additional categories of personal data or use the personal data transferred for new purposes, the appendices to the data transfer agreements must be amended.  When a U.S. multinational has a large number of EU subsidiaries, managing these agreements and the amendments to them can be administratively burdensome.

Adding to the potential burden, the data protection authorities in approximately a dozen EU Member States— including, for example, Austria, Belgium, France, Poland, and Spain—may require submission and approval of the data transfer agreements before the local subsidiary can rely on them to transfer personal data.  For many U.S.-based human resources professionals under pressure to implement a global HRIS on a short timeline and a limited budget, this waiting period could pose a substantial impediment to timely implementation.

Binding Corporate Rules

Binding corporate rules provide another alternative mechanism to the Safe Harbor for transfers of personal data within a corporate group.  BCRs involve the development and implementation of a uniform set of rules that are binding on all members of the corporate group, regardless of location, and that provide the high level of protection for personal data required by the Directive. 

While BCRs may initially appear to be a ready-made solution for U.S. multinationals that previously relied on Safe Harbor certification, they likely will not provide the answer for most companies.  Notably, since the Commission first approved BCRs in November 2004, fewer than 100 companies globally and fewer than 30 in the U.S. have implemented them.  Those organizations that have implemented BCRs are among the largest, richest and most sophisticated U.S. corporations.  BCRs likely have been selected by so few organizations (as compared to the more than 4,000 organizations certified to the Safe Harbor) because of the onerous approval process.  The data protection authority of each country where the U.S. organization has a subsidiary with employees is entitled to an opportunity to review and comment on the BCRs. 

This review and approval process can require substantial resources to navigate and routinely takes more than one year to complete.  Moreover, with the invalidation of the Safe Harbor, many data protection authorities likely will see a spike in requests for approval of BCRs, resulting in additional delay. With the low cost and ease of trans-Atlantic telecommunications, many smaller U.S. companies are now multinational employers.  These companies typically will not have the internal resources, financial capital, or time to complete the BCR review and approval process. 

Safe Harbor Replacement?

Since the Commission issued its 2013 report criticizing the Safe Harbor, the Commission and the Commerce Department have been negotiating modifications to the then-existing Framework.  According to media reports, those negotiations have made significant progress.  Because that the U.S. and the EU are each other's largest respective trading partner and given the need for a relatively easy and inexpensive means for lawfully transferring personal data between the trading blocs, the negotiators likely will view the ECJ's decision as a spur to expedite completion of their negotiations.  Moreover, the ECJ's detailed criticism of the now-invalidated Safe Harbor effectively created a roadmap for a "replacement Safe Harbor" that will meet the ECJ's standards.

To be sure, progress toward the completion of a "replacement Safe Harbor" is shrouded in the typical secrecy of diplomatic negotiations.  However, the Commission or the Commerce Department may soon issue a statement providing some clarity on the anticipated completion of their negotiations.  In the meantime, U.S. multinational employers will need to weigh the risks of a wait-and-see approach against the costs of implementing an available alternative.

The "Derogations"

As with most legal rules, the Directive sets out several exceptions, referred to in EU parlance as "derogations," to the general rule that personal data cannot be transferred to a third country unless that country "ensures an adequate level of protection" for personal data.  The only two derogations that potentially apply in the employment context are (a) transfers with the unambiguous consent of the data subject, i.e., the employee; and (b) "the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller," i.e., the EU-based employer.  Unfortunately, neither of these derogations is likely to provide a feasible solution.

Before the Safe Harbor Framework was implemented and for several years after, many U.S. multinationals relied on employees' consent to legitimize cross-border data transfers.  However, EU data protection regulators have expressed their strong disfavor of reliance on this derogation in the employment context.  According to these regulators, for consent to be valid, it must be "freely given"; however, because of the hierarchical nature of the employment relationship, employees cannot freely give consent as a matter of law. 

While consent likely is not a viable solution for transfers of employee data, it may be a viable option for transfers of the personal data of job applicants.  Job applicants are not yet in a hierarchical relationship with the prospective employer.  In addition, job applicants can freely give consent because they have the choice not to apply for a position with an employer who will transfer their personal data to the United States. 

Importantly, employers who plan to rely on consent to transfer applicants' data will be required to provide applicants with robust notice—for example, through an online applicant privacy policy—that complies with all applicable EU data protection laws.  In addition, in order for applicants' consent to be "unambiguous," the employer will need to provide a means for the applicant to affirmatively express acceptance of terms of any privacy notice.

Although many EU subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals require employees to execute an employment agreement, they would face some risk by relying on the "performance-of-contract" derogation to legitimize cross-border data transfers to a global HRIS located in the U.S.  To begin with, EU data protection authorities construe the derogations narrowly.  In the case of the "performance-of-contract" derogation, the regulators likely would scrutinize whether the transfer to the third-party parent corporation is "necessary" for the performance of the contract between the EU resident and the EU employer-subsidiary.  This is because employees' personal data stored in a global HRIS often is used to perform functions that are in the interest of the parent corporation, such as succession planning, but have limited, if any, significance for the contractual relationship between the EU employee and the EU employer-subsidiary.

Other Issues

Service Providers

As previously noted, many U.S. multinational employers rely on third-party service providers to support global operations.  Under the now-invalidated Safe Harbor, the employer could transfer EU personal data to these service providers if they themselves were certified to the Safe Harbor.  In addition, EU-based managers and human resources personnel could rely on the service provider's Safe Harbor certification to enter data about EU employees directly into databases maintained by the service provider.  The ECJ's decision has effectively eliminated this option.

With no Safe Harbor currently in place, U.S. multinational employers likely will need to rely on data transfer agreements to legitimize the transfer of EU personal data to U.S.-based service providers.  The EU Commission has approved Standard Contractual Clauses for transfers of personal data between data controllers, i.e., employers, and data processors, i.e., service providers.  As a practical matter, these employers should expect that their service providers will be inundated with requests to execute SCCs in light of the ECJ's decision.  Consequently, there may be some delay getting these data transfer agreements in place.

Additional Guidance May Be Forthcoming

The invalidation of the Safe Harbor is a radical structural change to the relationship between the EU and the U.S. insofar as cross-border data transfers are concerned.  With this change having an impact on more than 4,000 U.S. and EU businesses, the Commerce Department and EU data protection regulators will be under pressure to issue guidance on the implications of the ECJ's decision for companies that relied on the now-invalidated Safe Harbor. 

Summary of Recommendations

In light of the ECJ's decision invalidating the Safe Harbor Framework, U.S. multinational employers should consider taking the following steps:

  1. Watch for guidance issued by U.S. and/or EU regulators;
  2. Monitor the progress of negotiations over a replacement Safe Harbor;
  3. Evaluate Standard Contractual Clauses, Binding Corporate Rules, and the derogations as alternatives to the now-invalidated Safe Harbor Framework;
  4. Consider using consent as a mechanism to legitimize cross-border transfers of applicants' personal data; and
  5. Evaluate whether it is necessary to implement SCCs with any service providers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Philip L. Gordon
Tahl Tyson
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.