Search

How can we help?

Icon

Privacy Shield Declared Invalid by CJEU

The CJEU yesterday handed down its long-awaited decision on questions put to it regarding Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems (C-311/18) (Schrems 2).

It found that the transfer mechanism used to permit data transfers to the US under the EU-US Privacy Shield is invalid.

It also found that the use of standard contractual clauses, another mechanism used to permit transfers to countries outside the EEA, remains lawful, subject to assessments being conducted of the level of protection afforded in the recipient country.

For those that have been following the Schrems 2 case, its conclusion concerning the validity of Privacy Shield may have come as a bit of surprise.

The A-G’s advisory opinion to the Court on the Schrems 2 case issued in December 2019 did not specifically address the adequacy of the Privacy Shield regime, but focussed on questions concerning the standard contractual clauses.

Privacy Shield

The EU-US Privacy Shield was a compliance regime adopted by the EU in 2016 as an “adequacy decision” under Article 45 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This framework enabled EU organisations to transfer data to the US but only to US organisations which were registered with Privacy Shield.

The CJEU determined that certain domestic US laws which allowed surveillance by U.S intelligence services (including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Executive Order 12333 and Presidential Policy Directive 28) did not provide for the required limits on the powers granted to intelligence agencies and non-US individuals would not have a right of redress in US courts for any  interference with their personal data. As a result, the Privacy Shield regime could not be sustained, and the previous decision made in 2016 was declared invalid.

Standard Contractual Clauses

Entry into the EU’s standard contractual clauses is not in and of itself enough to ensure that a transfer outside the EEA will be lawful.

Controllers that use SCCs must also ensure that:

  • they “take measures to compensate for the lack of data protection in a third country”;
  • there are safeguards ; and
  • there exists enforceable rights and effective remedies for the data subject (Article 46 (1)).

In light of the CJEU’s findings on the US laws discussed above, it is highly doubtful that the SCC’s can continue to be used as a lawful way of transferring personal data to the US.

The transfer mechanism used to permit data transfers to the US under the EU-US Privacy Shield is invalid.

What this means

Neither the Privacy Shield framework or potentially the SCCs should be relied upon to permit transfers of personal data to the US.

Apart from very limited circumstances permitted by Article 49 of the GDPR (such as where explicit consent is obtained for specified transfers or for “occasional” transfers necessary for implementation of pre-contractual measures or for performance of a contract) it now appears the majority of transfers from the EEA to US could be unlawful.

Organisations will be in a state of legal limbo until the EU introduces an alternative scheme or approves other measures to allow the continued lawful transfer of personal data to the US.

It remains to be seen what guidance supervisory authorities release to address the legal vacuum.

The ICO has already delivered a very short press statement last night stating that it is currently considering the judgment and that it stands ready to support UK organisations to ensure global data flows can continue and personal data is protected.

Our Privacy and Data Protection Team can provide advice and review of your organisation’s current methods of compliance and provide practical advice concerning what steps should be taken.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 23 July 2026
  • Immigration

New Priority Service for British citizenship applications: Faster decisions now available

The Home Office has introduced a new Priority Service for British citizenship applications, allowing eligible applicants to receive a decision on their naturalisation or registration application in around 30 working days, rather than waiting the standard processing time of up to six months.

Pub
  • 21 July 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Quarterly Insights: Key Corporate & Commercial Topics – Q3 2026

Join Stuart Mullins and Jonathan Hayes as they explore the most topical corporate and commercial issues, along with key developments our team has examined over the past three months. In Q3, they discuss CICs, company registers, and the use of NDAs in business sales and exits.

art
  • 20 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Personal Data FAQs

Explore comprehensive answers to frequently asked questions about personal data, GDPR compliance, and your rights.

art
  • 16 July 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

EMIs – The basics

Discover the essentials of Enterprise Management Incentives (EMIs), an HMRC-approved employee share scheme offering tax advantages. Learn how EMIs incentivise staff, eligibility requirements, and how Clarkslegal can help tailor a scheme for you.

Pub
  • 15 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 overhaul: The end of Terms of Reference and future trends – Episode 3

In this final episode, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) discuss the impact of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 overhaul, focusing on the end of Terms of Reference. Hear expert insights and practical tips for adapting to the new rules.

art
  • 15 July 2026
  • Employment

New guidance on interim relief: More applications, same high threshold

In certain limited unfair dismissal claims (such as those for automatic unfair dismissal relating to a protected disclosure) claimants can apply for interim relief. This is an emergency measure which essentially prevents a dismissal from taking effect until the claim has been heard.