Digitrade Digest #62
EU-New Zealand finalize trade agreement, US and Taiwan start trade talks and more
Webinar: Why Is Big Tech So Afraid of the EU's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act?
The Digital Trade Alliance (DTA) and Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) cordially invite you to participate in our webinar on Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA).
Why Is Big Tech So Afraid of the EU's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act?
What Advocates and Regulators Should Know About How These New Laws will Regulate Big Tech to the Benefit of Consumers
Date and Time: July 14, 2022, 9:00 a.m. EST/3:00 p.m. CET
The European Union has been a leader in setting high standards for strong consumer data privacy, as reflected by its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), that much of the world has begun to emulate.
Recently, the European Parliament and Council of the EU reached a political agreement on two path-breaking laws which have the potential to act as a check on Big Tech overreach: the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DMA will give the European Commission unprecedented powers to monitor and hold accountable digital platforms, or so-called “gatekeepers.” The DSA focuses on user safety and platform accountability among intermediaries. There remain many questions, particularly in the United States, about the details of the DMA and DSA and how they will be implemented. Already, U.S. Big Tech companies are taking aim at these laws in various fora.
Join consumer advocate experts to help us understand the content and application of these new laws, their relationship to the GDPR data protection regulation, and potential efforts by Big Tech to undermine them.
Speakers:
Vanessa Turner, Senior Advisor – Competition, BEUC (The European Consumer Organisation
Cláudio Teixeira, Legal Officer – Digital and Consumer Rights, BEUC (The European Consumer Organisation)
Melinda St. Louis, Director – Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
Calli Schroeder, Global Privacy Counsel -- Electronic Privacy Information Center (moderator)
Register here to receive information on how to join via zoom.
If you have any questions about the webinar, contact Deepika Yadav
US- Taiwan
US and Taiwan hold first round of trade talks in new bid to counter China’s economic influence
SCMP: US deputy trade representative Sarah Bianchi and Taiwanese minister without portfolio John Deng met under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), Washington’s de facto embassy on the self-ruled island, and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington (Tecro), according to an announcement by the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).
The two sides expect to sign “agreements with high-standard commitments”, which “will cover a number of trade areas, including trade facilitation, regulatory practices, agriculture, anti-corruption, small- and medium-sized enterprises, digital trade, labour, environment, standards, state-owned enterprises, and non-market policies and practices”, USTR said.
The office’s announcement about the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade earlier this month sparked an angry response from Beijing, which considers the self-ruled island to be a renegade province.
EU
EU – New Zealand Trade Agreement: Unlocking sustainable economic growth
ec.europa: Executive Vice-President and Commissioner for Trade, Valdis Dombrovskis, said: “This is a new generation of trade deal, with both sides set to make real economic and environmental gains. New economic opportunities are vital as we strive to recover from the twin shocks of COVID-19 and Russia's aggression against Ukraine. This deal will unlock a raft of fresh export opportunities for EU businesses and SMEs for goods and services. It also contains the most ambitious sustainability commitments in any trade agreement ever. This proves we are already delivering on our promise to get more added value from our trade deals in terms of sustainability.”
New export opportunities for businesses big and small
The agreement will provide new opportunities for businesses by:
Eliminating all tariffs on EU exports to New Zealand.
Opening the New Zealand services market in key sectors such as financial services, telecommunications, maritime transport and delivery services.
Ensuring non-discriminatory treatment to EU investors in New Zealand and vice versa.
Improving access for EU companies to New Zealand government procurement contracts for goods, services, works and works concessions. The New Zealand procurement market is worth some €60 billion a year.
Facilitating data flows, predictable and transparent rules for digital trade and a secure online environment for consumers.
Preventing unjustified data localisation requirements and maintaining the high standards of personal data protection.
Helping small businesses export more through a dedicated chapter on small and medium enterprises.
Significantly reducing compliance requirement and procedures to allow for quicker flow of goods.
Significant commitments by New Zealand to protect and enforce intellectual property rights, aligned with EU standards.
Data Localization
Location, Location, Location: Does Localization Still Matter In Data Privacy Regulation
Why Localization Still Matters
On the other hand, there are a few solid arguments as to why location still has a significant influence on data privacy.
1. Technicalities are important. Many laws are inspired by original regulations like the GDPR, but they still differ in several ways. Timelines and fines are two prominent examples. The GDPR gives companies an initial 30-day period to respond, while CCPA extends this period to 45 days. These seemingly small details eventually determine which companies fail to meet the legal requirements, making them far more critical than we may think.
2. Local enforcement differs. Enforcement policies may change from one place to the next, even between countries operating under the same laws. Germany, for instance, is considered one of the strictest enforcers of the GDPR in the EU. Each state’s mentality and public debate may impact how the law is interpreted and implemented.
3. Location carries symbolism. Sometimes, the importance of a specific location is symbolic. When China joined the data privacy regulation league, businesses worldwide understood the deeper meaning of having a country we wouldn’t expect to lead the data privacy revolution embrace such regulation. The same goes for states with a prominent data-related position, like California, the Mecca of technology companies.
The connection between location and privacy can be problematic and lead to a “race to the bottom” similar to that created by other economic competitions. When Meta threatens (paywall) to take Facebook out of the EU if data sharing requirements remain inflexible, we see the need for an overarching approach. Still, it may take some time to complete this change. Meanwhile, companies will have to operate both on a local level and a general one. To make things easier, they should develop clear guidelines and lean on helpful technology.
Use of anonymised datasets by govts needs debate: Google privacy officer
BuisnessStandard: Speaking about data localisation requirements by governments, Enright said it risks fracturing the benefits of a globally distributed cloud. “The cloud was optimized for security, availability, efficiency, and data localisation sort of retreats for many of those benefits.”
While the governments might think localising data would help in law enforcement, taxation, or bring other economic benefits, none of these areas has gained from such a practice in the last 10 years. “So as a general matter, I would encourage people to look closely at their motivations.”
Enright added that if the policymakers believe that there’s an imperative for data localisation for some reason, it should be as narrowly tailored. “That is the way to minimize the downside and optimize for very specific legitimate requirements that perhaps in a certain context could be advanced by data localization, but do not have these unintended public policy spillover consequences,” he said.
India’s Data Protection Bill has mandated data localization storage of sensitive personal data and critical personal data only in India. The contentious issue however, according to technology companies, was that there is no clear definition of such data. However, recent media reports suggest that the changes being made to the Data Protection Bill will take care of this issue.
Enright added that fragmentation of such laws could erode the company’s ability to protect and secure data, eroding individual privacy requirements, which would be an unintentional policy consequence.
“If the costs of compliance and the complexity of compliance gets so high through these radically divergent legal requirements could actually stifle innovation,” he said.