Data Strategy Briefing — March 25, 2022
The March 25, 2022 political agreement on the EU–US Data Privacy Framework demands that transatlantic data exporters tighten transfer inventories, governance, and vendor due diligence now so they can pivot quickly once the new adequacy system is in force.
Executive briefing: On March 25, 2022 the European Commission and the U.S. government announced a political agreement on a new EU–U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF) intended to restore an adequacy mechanism for transatlantic data transfers after the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) invalidated Privacy Shield in Schrems II. While legal texts were still being drafted in 2022, organizations must use the announcement to accelerate remediation of cross-border transfer risks. The framework promises stronger U.S. intelligence oversight, a new multi-layer redress mechanism for EU individuals, and binding safeguards on necessity and proportionality. Data exporters should not wait for the final adequacy decision; instead they should catalog transfers, harden Standard Contractual Clause (SCC) assessments, and prepare to integrate DPF commitments into privacy management systems.
Understand the proposed framework and legal trajectory
The March announcement outlines reforms the U.S. executive branch committed to implement via Executive Order and Department of Justice regulations. These include limiting signals intelligence to what is necessary and proportionate for national security, enhancing independent oversight through a Civil Liberties Protection Officer (CLPO) within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and establishing a new Data Protection Review Court (DPRC) staffed by outside judges with authority to order remedial measures. The European Commission intends to draft an adequacy decision once the U.S. implements these safeguards. However, privacy advocates such as NOYB have signaled they will challenge the framework, meaning companies must continue to rely on SCCs, Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), or derogations, supported by transfer impact assessments (TIAs) and supplementary measures.
The DPF will likely include updated principles similar to Privacy Shield—notice, choice, accountability for onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and recourse. U.S. organizations seeking certification will commit to these principles and be subject to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or Department of Transportation enforcement. The framework also aims to streamline redress for EU individuals through the CLPO and DPRC. Exporters should anticipate additional recordkeeping and reporting obligations compared with the previous framework, particularly around responding to national security access requests and demonstrating compliance to EU supervisory authorities.
Operational priorities for privacy, security, and legal teams
Immediately update data transfer inventories. Map all cross-border flows from the EU/EEA to the U.S., including HR systems, customer support platforms, cloud hosting, marketing tools, analytics, and adtech integrations. For each transfer, document the data categories, purposes, lawful bases, processors involved, and current transfer safeguards (SCCs, BCRs, derogations). Identify high-risk transfers involving sensitive personal data, large volumes, or critical business processes. This inventory will allow quick migration to the DPF once the adequacy decision is adopted and will support ongoing TIAs demanded by Schrems II.
Review and refresh transfer impact assessments. Assess the legal environment of the destination (United States) in light of the planned Executive Order, DOJ regulations, and Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) reports. Document surveillance law analysis, including Section 702 of FISA, Executive Order 12333, and Cloud Act obligations. Evaluate technical safeguards such as encryption, pseudonymization, and access controls. Update risk ratings and compensating controls. Maintain evidence that EU individuals can exercise rights through your organization’s mechanisms pending the DPF redress system.
Security and IT teams should strengthen technical measures that supervisory authorities have emphasized: end-to-end encryption with keys controlled in the EU where feasible, customer-managed encryption keys, tokenization, robust access logging, and data minimization. Consider implementing split processing architectures where sensitive data remains in EU data centers while non-sensitive analytics run in the U.S. Document security certifications (ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2) and privacy controls (ISO/IEC 27701) to demonstrate accountability.
Human resources, procurement, and marketing operations must update data processing agreements (DPAs) to reflect supplementary measures. Ensure DPAs reference the 2021 SCC modular clauses, include annexes describing technical and organizational measures, and require downstream vendors to notify of government access requests. For HR data transfers, review collective bargaining agreements and works council consultation requirements before adopting new transfer mechanisms.
Governance actions for boards and senior management
Boards should receive briefings on the legal uncertainties surrounding the DPF, including likely litigation timelines and contingency plans if the adequacy decision is invalidated. Document decisions on acceptable risk thresholds, investments in encryption and localization, and strategies for data minimization. The audit committee should request updates from management at least quarterly on TIA remediation progress, regulator inquiries, and vendor alignment. Establish key risk indicators (KRIs) such as number of unresolved data subject requests, outstanding vendor assessments, and transfer dependencies without viable alternatives.
Appoint or reaffirm a senior executive owner—typically the Chief Privacy Officer or Chief Legal Officer—to oversee transatlantic transfer compliance. Ensure the owner coordinates with the Chief Information Security Officer, Chief Data Officer, and regional privacy leads. Integrate DPF readiness into enterprise risk management, referencing ISO 31000 frameworks for risk treatment. Update policies, including cross-border transfer policies, incident response plans, and government request guidelines, to reflect forthcoming DPF obligations.
Engage with employee representatives and work councils early, particularly for multinational companies headquartered in Germany, France, or the Netherlands, where co-determination rules require consultation before modifying data flows. Provide clear documentation of safeguards, the DPF’s anticipated protections, and the organization’s contingency plans should courts strike down the framework again. Transparent communication reduces the risk of complaints to supervisory authorities.
Sourcing and vendor management considerations
Most organizations rely on extensive cloud and SaaS ecosystems that implicate U.S. transfers. Procurement should prioritize contractual clauses that enable swift onboarding to the DPF, including commitments from U.S. vendors to self-certify within required timelines, cooperate with EU supervisory authorities, and maintain supplementary measures if the framework faces legal challenges. Build contractual fallback options—such as allowing the customer to terminate or require EU data hosting—if adequacy is revoked.
Perform due diligence on critical suppliers’ readiness. Request evidence of transfer inventories, TIA methodologies, encryption practices, and plans to engage with the DPF. For hyperscale cloud providers (AWS, Microsoft, Google Cloud), review documentation on EU data boundary initiatives, confidential computing, and customer-managed encryption key services. For SaaS vendors, demand transparency about sub-processors, data center locations, and procedures for government access requests. Embed right-to-audit clauses to verify controls.
Evaluate regional alternatives when risk tolerance or regulatory pressure makes U.S. transfers untenable. Explore EU-hosted services, sovereign cloud offerings, and edge computing solutions that minimize cross-border data flow. However, perform cost-benefit analyses considering latency, feature parity, and vendor lock-in. Document governance decisions to demonstrate to regulators that the organization weighed options carefully.
Communications, transparency, and stakeholder engagement
Update privacy notices, cookie banners, and consent management platforms to explain transfer safeguards in plain language. Once the DPF text becomes available, draft plan for integrating new references into privacy policies and data subject request templates. Prepare FAQs for customers and employees explaining the DPF, how redress will work, and what happens if the framework is invalidated. Maintain logs of communications to demonstrate accountability.
Monitor regulatory developments closely. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and national supervisory authorities will likely issue guidance or enforcement expectations during the transition period. Participate in industry associations (DigitalEurope, BSA, IAPP) to stay informed and provide feedback. Legal teams should track U.S. legislative efforts on federal privacy law and any Congressional actions affecting surveillance authorities, as these could influence the DPF’s durability.
Finally, prepare for audits. Supervisory authorities may examine SCC implementations, TIAs, and reliance on derogations. Create centralized repositories for transfer documentation, encryption architecture diagrams, government request logs, and vendor correspondence. Test incident response procedures that involve cross-border data to ensure regulators can be notified within GDPR timelines. By acting now, organizations will be positioned to adopt the Data Privacy Framework quickly while maintaining robust safeguards even if legal uncertainty persists.
Continue in the Data Strategy pillar
Return to the hub for curated research and deep-dive guides.
Latest guides
-
Data Interoperability Engineering Guide — Zeph Tech
Engineer interoperable data exchanges that satisfy the EU Data Act, Data Governance Act, European Interoperability Framework, and ISO/IEC 19941 portability requirements.
-
Data Stewardship Operating Model Guide — Zeph Tech
Establish accountable data stewardship programmes that meet U.S. Evidence Act mandates, Canada’s Directive on Service and Digital, and OECD data governance principles while…
-
Data Strategy Operating Model Guide — Zeph Tech
Design a data strategy operating model that satisfies the EU Data Act, EU Data Governance Act, U.S. Evidence Act, and Singapore Digital Government policies with measurable…