Extraterritoriality and targeting in EU data privacy law: The weak spot undermining the regulation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Key Points
•This article aims to highlight that the conventional focus on distinguishing between territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction is misguided.
•It also analyses the latest legal developments as to Article 4—which deals with the territorial scope—of the European Data Protection Directive as well as the latest version of its counterpart (Article 3) in the proposed European Data Protection Regulation.
•It will be shown that the direction the EU is taking—focussing on ‘targeting’—requires substantial refinement to avoid ending in frustration; the benefits of the ‘targeting’ test as currently articulated are largely illusory, and the severity of its downsides will no doubt become clear once we see it applied in practice in the data privacy context.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)226-234
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Data Privacy Law
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

privacy law
data protection
jurisdiction
EU
regulation
frustration
privacy

Cite this

@article{1077261ccf25498db3a4eb130480801a,
title = "Extraterritoriality and targeting in EU data privacy law: The weak spot undermining the regulation",
abstract = "Key Points •This article aims to highlight that the conventional focus on distinguishing between territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction is misguided. •It also analyses the latest legal developments as to Article 4—which deals with the territorial scope—of the European Data Protection Directive as well as the latest version of its counterpart (Article 3) in the proposed European Data Protection Regulation. •It will be shown that the direction the EU is taking—focussing on ‘targeting’—requires substantial refinement to avoid ending in frustration; the benefits of the ‘targeting’ test as currently articulated are largely illusory, and the severity of its downsides will no doubt become clear once we see it applied in practice in the data privacy context.",
author = "Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1093/idpl/ipv024",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "226--234",
journal = "International Data Privacy Law",
issn = "2044-3994",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

Extraterritoriality and targeting in EU data privacy law : The weak spot undermining the regulation. / Svantesson, Dan Jerker B.

In: International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2015, p. 226-234.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extraterritoriality and targeting in EU data privacy law

T2 - The weak spot undermining the regulation

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Key Points •This article aims to highlight that the conventional focus on distinguishing between territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction is misguided. •It also analyses the latest legal developments as to Article 4—which deals with the territorial scope—of the European Data Protection Directive as well as the latest version of its counterpart (Article 3) in the proposed European Data Protection Regulation. •It will be shown that the direction the EU is taking—focussing on ‘targeting’—requires substantial refinement to avoid ending in frustration; the benefits of the ‘targeting’ test as currently articulated are largely illusory, and the severity of its downsides will no doubt become clear once we see it applied in practice in the data privacy context.

AB - Key Points •This article aims to highlight that the conventional focus on distinguishing between territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction is misguided. •It also analyses the latest legal developments as to Article 4—which deals with the territorial scope—of the European Data Protection Directive as well as the latest version of its counterpart (Article 3) in the proposed European Data Protection Regulation. •It will be shown that the direction the EU is taking—focussing on ‘targeting’—requires substantial refinement to avoid ending in frustration; the benefits of the ‘targeting’ test as currently articulated are largely illusory, and the severity of its downsides will no doubt become clear once we see it applied in practice in the data privacy context.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991269532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/idpl/ipv024

DO - 10.1093/idpl/ipv024

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 226

EP - 234

JO - International Data Privacy Law

JF - International Data Privacy Law

SN - 2044-3994

IS - 4

ER -