Morven Henderson, Hayley Curry and Rachel de Souza | Privacy Matters | DLA Piper Data Protection and Privacy | DLA Piper https://privacymatters.dlapiper.com/author/mhenderson/ DLA Piper's Global Privacy and Data Protection Resource Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:41:03 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8&lxb_maple_bar_source=lxb_maple_bar_source https://privacyblog.dlapiperblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/07/cropped-Favicon_512x512-32x32.gif Morven Henderson, Hayley Curry and Rachel de Souza | Privacy Matters | DLA Piper Data Protection and Privacy | DLA Piper https://privacymatters.dlapiper.com/author/mhenderson/ 32 32 US: Department of Justice issues final rule restricting the transfer of Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data to “countries of concern” https://privacymatters.dlapiper.com/2025/04/us-department-of-justice-issues-final-rule-restricting-the-transfer-of-sensitive-personal-data-and-united-states-government-related-data-to-countries-of-concern/ Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:40:41 +0000 https://privacymatters.dlapiper.com/?p=7572 Continue Reading]]> On April, 8 2025, the Department of Justice’s final rule, implementing the Biden-era Executive Order 14117 restricting the transfer of Americans’ Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data to countries of concern (the “Final Rule“), came into force. The Final Rule imposes new requirements on US companies when transferring certain types of personal data to designated countries of concern or covered persons.

Executive Order 14117, and the implementing Final Rule , intends to address the threat of foreign powers and state-sponsored threat actors using Americans’ sensitive personal data for malicious purposes. The Final Rule sets out the conditions under which a bulk transfer of sensitive personal data or US government-related data to a country of concern or covered person will be permitted, restricted or prohibited.

The Final Rule underpins the higher levels of scrutiny from the US government over bulk cross-border data transfers which may pose a risk to the US national interests, and the tightening of compliance requirements on US companies to protect sensitive personal data and government data when engaging with these countries, or those connected.

Scope of the Final Rule

The key elements determining the applicability and scope of the Final Rule, when applied to a data transaction by a US entity, are:

  • Countries of Concern: As noted above, the Final Rule designates six countries as countries of concern: (1) China (including Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR), (2) Cuba, (3) Iran, (4) North Korea, (5) Russia, and (6) Venezuela. The transfer of sensitive data to Covered Persons within these jurisdictions could therefore be captured.
  • Covered Persons: The Final Rule defines four classes of covered persons as the transacting party that will require additional scrutiny: (1) foreign entities that are 50% or more owned by a country of concern, organized under the laws of a country of concern, or have their principal place of business in a country of concern; (2) foreign entities that are 50% or more owned by a covered person; (3) foreign employees or contractors of countries of concern or entities that are covered persons; and (4) foreign individuals primarily resident in countries of concern.
  • Sensitive Personal Data: The Final Rule regulates transactions involving six categories of sensitive personal data: (1) certain covered personal identifiers; (2) precise geolocation data; (3) biometric identifiers; (4) human genomic data and three other types of human ‘omic data (epigenomic, proteomic, or transcriptomic); (5) personal health data; and (6) personal financial data.
  • Bulk Sensitive Personal Data: Within these Sensitive Personal Data categories, different thresholds for the volume of data being transferred are applied. These thresholds determine the applicability of the Final Rule to the transaction. The prohibitions and restrictions apply to covered data transactions involving sensitive personal data exceeding certain thresholds over the preceding 12 months before the transaction. For example, compliance requirements for the transfer of precise geolocation data will not be triggered unless location data from over 1,000 US persons or devices is being transferred. Contrastingly, the data transfer of the personal identifiers (such as social security numbers) of over 100,000 US persons will be required before the threshold is met. The definition of ‘bulk’ and how this applies across the categories of personal data is therefore key.

Prohibited or restricted transactions?

Alongside these key elements, the Final Rule determines that the type of transaction under which the data is being transferred will inform whether the transaction is restricted, prohibited or exempt from scrutiny. A transaction falling into the category of restricted will impose the new, additional compliance requirements on US Companies before the transaction can proceed.

The Final Rule prohibits transactions involving (1) data brokerage (i.e., “the sale of data, licensing of access to data, or similar commercial transactions involving the transfer of data”), and (2) covered data transactions involving access to bulk human ‘omic data or human biospecimens from which such data can be derived. The outright prohibition on data brokerage agreements with countries of concern is extended further, with the Final Rule also requiring US persons to contractually ensure that data brokerage transactions with other foreign persons, who are not countries of concern or covered persons, do not enable the transfer of the same data to countries of concern under subsequent arrangements. This additional safeguard on data brokerage where sensitive personal data is involved underlines the requirement for sufficient due diligence with overseas partners.

Vendor, employment, and non-passive investment agreements are captured as restricted transactions. These transactions are permitted if they meet certain security requirements developed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA).

Finally, data transactions which fall under categories such as (but not limited to) personal communications that do not transfer anything of value, ordinary corporate group transactions between a U.S. person and its foreign subsidiary or affiliate, and financial services involving transactions ordinarily incident to and part of providing financial services, are exempt from any compliance requirements under the Final Rule: illustrating the practical intention of the requirements.

Compliance obligations

CISA requirements detail the types of cybersecurity, data retention, encryption and anonymisation policies, alongside other measures, that can be adopted by US companies in order to bring a restricted transaction into compliance, ensuring the safety of sensitive personal data.

An enhanced due diligence exercise is therefore expected when seeking to transact with covered persons, where the bulk transfer of sensitive personal data is a possibility. Key features of this include the implementation of a data compliance program, including comprehensive policies, procedures and record keeping surrounding data involved in a restricted transaction, as well the completion of third-party audits to monitor compliance with the Final Rule. Finally, reporting is expected when engaging in restricted transactions, demonstrating the depth of US government oversight and interest in these transactions.

FAQs, Compliance Guide and Enforcement Policy

On April 11, 2025, the Department of Justice published answers to Frequently Asked Questions;  a Compliance Guide; and issued a Implementation and Enforcement Policy for the first 90 days of the Final Rule. (i.e. through July 8, 2025). 

  • Compliance Guide. The Compliance Guide aims to provide ‘general information’ to assist individuals and entities when complying with the Data Security Program (“DSP”), established by the Department of Justice’s National Security Division to implement the  Final Rule and Executive Order 14117. The Compliance Guide includes guidance on a number of different areas, including, key definitions, steps that organizations should take  to comply with the Final Rule, model contract language and prohibited and restricted data transactions.
  • FAQs. The Department of Justice has provided answers to more than 100 FAQs, which aim to provide high level clarifications about Executive Order 14117 and the DSP, including, for example, answers to questions in relation to scope of the DSP;  the effective date of the Final Rule; definitions , exemptions; and enforcement and penalties.
  • Implementation and Enforcement Policy for the First 90 Days (the Policy): The Policy states that during the first 90 days, enforcement will be limited “to allow U.S. persons (e.g., individuals and companies) additional time to continue implementing the necessary changes to comply with the DSP “. Specifically, the Policy is clear that there will be limited  civil enforcement actions against any person for violations of the DSP that occur from April 8 through July 8, 2025 “so long as the person is engaging in good faith efforts to comply with or come into compliance with the DSP during that time”. The Policy provides examples of ‘good faith efforts’, including: conducting internal reviews of access to sensitive personal data; renegotiating vendor agreements or negotiating contracts with new vendors; transferring products and services to new vendors; implementing CISA security requirements; adjusting employee work locations, roles or responsibilities; and evaluating investments from countries of concern or covered persons. The Policy stated that at “the end of this 90-day period, individuals, and entities should be in full compliance with the DSP.”

Next steps

Whilst certain due diligence, auditing, and reporting obligations will not become effective until October 2025, preparation for effective oversight and compliance with the CISA requirements can begin now. In particular, organisations should assess current compliance measures in place to identify potential compliance gaps and establish controls to address those gaps, in order to be able to demonstrate that they are engaging in “good faith efforts.” DLA Piper can advise on a review of current policies and procedures and preparing effectively for transactions that may fall within the Final Rule.

]]>
UK: NCSC issue guidance on how to communicate effectively in a cyber incident https://privacymatters.dlapiper.com/2024/10/uk-ncsc-issue-guidance-on-how-to-communicate-effectively-in-a-cyber-incident/ Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:19:02 +0000 https://privacymatters.dlapiper.com/?p=7473 Continue Reading]]> Planning and developing an effective communications strategy is a critical step in preparing for a cyber security incident. Last week, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre published guidance on communicating with stakeholders before, during and after a cyber security incident. The guidance is published with organisations of all sizes in mind, and sets out three core principles to follow.

  1. Prepare your communications strategy in advance

A cyber incident can hit any organisation, regardless of size, at any time. The NCSC therefore advocates a proactive strategy ready to be deployed when required, to lessen the impact of the incident.

Steps to consider include:

  • Identifying an official spokesperson for the organisation when communicating with stakeholders such as the media, customers and employees.
  • Identifying key stakeholders ahead of time. Who needs to be informed, and how will this be achieved (bearing in mind that usual channels may be unavailable)?  
  • Drafting and agreeing pre-approved templates for communications. Whilst no one size will fit all, this can include style media requests, internal updates to staff and notifications to customers, to be tailored as necessary. Drafting these templates ahead of time will save time and ensure the organisation is speaking with a unified voice.

The NCSC highlights the importance of regular testing of the strategy, through tabletop exercises and simulations, to ensure its effectiveness and identifying any areas for amendment or improvement.

  1. Communicate clearly and tailor your messaging where necessary

The NCSC states that communications should be ‘clear, consistent, authoritative, accessible and timely’. It is also important that any communications released before, during or after a cyber security incident inform stakeholders whilst also maintaining reputation and credibility. Factors to consider include:

  • Information to stakeholders needs to be clear, but balanced to ensure that information is not disclosed that may heighten any risk to the victim, or which runs the risk of requiring later retraction as the incident develops. It is essential to ensure the communication strategy suits key stakeholders, and that specific concerns of each group are addressed.
  • The impact of the incident should be reflected in communications to those who suffer consequences, with acknowledgment of the practical consequences as opposed to focussing solely on technical detail.
  • Development of a Q&A document should be an early priority in incident response: preparation of responses to common stakeholder queries in advance will enable consistency in response and provide assurances that communications address key and recurrent concerns.
  1. Manage the aftermath

Finally, NCSC guidance urges organisations to think about the long term. Whilst an immediate response in the aftermath of an incident will be the primary focus consider what the approach is going to be in the weeks and months after, depending on the recovery time. How regularly will you provide updates? How will any incident and subsequent responses be used to inform future preparedness and any lessons learned?

How can we help?

The NCSC guidance provides welcome direction on the expectations on organisations when preparing for and responding to cyber security incident. The key message – in keeping with any cyber resilience strategy is to prepare ahead of time. Increasingly, we are seeing regulators, customers, and other stakeholders taking interest in the controls and procedures that were in place prior to any cyber incident and their fitness for purpose.

Taking time long before the “white heat” of any incident to design, deploy and ensure the continued fitness for purpose of response plans, including communications, is time well spent.

Should you wish to discuss communications response plans, table top exercises, or any other aspects of cyber resilience planning, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

]]>