- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Neil Hodge2024-02-20T14:24:00
The European Commission closed its four-week consultation inviting stakeholders to share their views on how the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is working after six years.
Between Jan. 11 and Feb. 8, companies, privacy professionals, lawyers, and others were asked to provide their opinions regarding the privacy regulation and where it might be lacking.
The feedback from the consultation could result in tweaks to the rules and potential changes to the way data protection authorities (DPAs) enforce them, especially regarding cross-border cases under the “one-stop shop” mechanism. These—if any—would be adopted in the second quarter of this year.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
The General Data Protection Regulation has been in force for nearly six years. Some industries—and some companies—have been more prone to fall foul of the rules than others.
The implications of a privacy rights case involving a U.K.-based Uber Eats driver underscore a popular belief that companies prioritize protecting the personal information of their customers over the data rights of their employees.
The European Union’s AI Act follows a risk-based approach: the higher the risk the artificial intelligence poses, the stricter the rules. Understanding each category is key to compliance.
Any product that uses AI needs to be safety assessed for its entire lifespan under new rules that went into effect recently across the EU. Experts warned companies using AI to tailor products could be classed as “manufacturers” and face the same duty of care as developed.
When lawmakers slam the U.K.’s chief financial regulator as “incompetent,” it not only opens the doors for others to pile criticism on it, but it sparks a debate about how the organization can be improved–or removed.
The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority apologized to investors in peer-to-peer investment firm Collateral for not acting swiftly enough to prevent Collateral from defrauding its customers.
