Short Reads

District Court The Hague: WhatsApp is more than data transition medium and must appoint Dutch representative

District Court The Hague: WhatsApp is more than data transition medium and must appoint Dutch representative

24.02.2017 NL law

On 22 July 2015, the Dutch Data Protection Authority ("DPA") imposed an order on WhatsApp Inc., backed by a penalty for non-compliance. The DPA concluded that WhatsApp must appoint a representative in the Netherlands within three months, subject to a penalty of €10,000 per day with a maximum of €1,000,000.

WhatsApp lodged an appeal against the DPA's decision and brought the case before the District Court of The Hague. A brief description of the relevant legal framework is presented below, followed by a discussion on WhatsApp’s most relevant arguments seeking the Court to dismiss the DPA's decision.

Under the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), which has been implemented in the Dutch Data Protection Act, a data controller that is established outside the EU and that uses equipment (automated or otherwise) situated in a Member State must designate a representative in that Member State unless such equipment is used for personal data transit only. Under the Dutch Data Protection Act, personal data may only be processed if the designated representative person or authority complies with the Dutch Data Protection Act. For the purposes thereof, the designated representative is regarded as the data controller.

WhatsApp alleged that Article 4 § 3 of the Dutch Data Protection Act (which states that a representative must be regarded as the controller) is inconsistent with the Data Protection Directive and therefore not binding. However, the District Court considers that the Directive does contain the obligation for a controller outside the EU to appoint a representative that can be held responsible by the supervisory authorities in the context of safeguarding rights and duties under the Data Protection Directive, which consideration is supported by Article 29 Working Party's advice on the applicable law of 16 December 2010. The Data Protection Directive must ensure the right to private life, even if the controller is not established within the EU. The rationale of the obligation is evidently that such protection of private life must not be hindered by the practical barrier of having to go to another country and turn to another legal system to safeguard privacy, as set out in the Data Protection Directive. The Court therefore dismisses WhatsApp's argument on this basis.

Furthermore, WhatsApp asserted that the absence of a local representative in the Netherlands should be allowed in anticipation of the GDPR. The GDPR comes in effect on 25 May 2018 and stipulates that a representative in a Member State of the EU should be appointed (instead of a representative in each Member State where equipment of a data controller outside the EU is situated). WhatsApp's argument in this respect also fails. The Court states that the GDPR does not apply yet and, moreover, WhatsApp did not provide any evidence showing that it had appointed a representative in another Member State.

WhatsApp also asserted that it cannot be regarded as a “controller” under the Dutch Data Protection Act because WhatsApp uses the automated equipment in the Netherlands for purposes of non-users’ personal data transit only. The District Court considered that users grant WhatsApp access to their telephone directory and, subsequently, WhatsApp compares the telephone numbers contained in its customers' directories with the telephone numbers on its own servers. The District Court therefore held that WhatsApp does not use its equipment in the Netherlands for data transit only.

WhatsApp finally argued that it is practically impossible to find a representative in the Netherlands because such representative would be held liable for any penalty for non-compliance with the Dutch Data Protection Act but would not have any influence on WhatsApp's activities. The District Court held that WhatsApp's statement that it is unable to find a representative is not a well-founded reason to discharge WhatsApp from its duty to appoint a representative in the EU Member State.

The District Court therefore upheld the DPA's decision. WhatsApp can still appeal against the District Court's decision by bringing the case before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.

The case can be found here.

Team

Related news

21.04.2017 NL law
18 May 2017: TMT/IP Masterclass: Advertising Law Update

Masterclass - The TMT/IP (Technology,  Media and Telecommunications / Intellectual Property) team at Stibbe Amsterdam will host a Masterclass about recent developments and regulations in advertising law. During the Masterclass, TMT Lawyer Janna van Olst will discuss important regulations and the most leading cases from the 12 months.

Read more

30.05.2017 EU law
The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU: A Survey of Developments in 10 Member States—the need to maintain safeguards

Articles - In 2013, the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on Collective Redress. It invited Member States to adopt a collective redress framework by July 2016 that would include the features mentioned in the Recommendation and then by July 2017, to report to the Commission about the extent to which they had done so. On the basis of the Member States’ report, the Commission will assess whether further actions by the EU is required.

Read more

12.04.2017 NL law
What does a legal entity know?

Short Reads - In civil law many rules rely for their legal effect on the presence of certain knowledge or a certain intention with one of the parties. If the party at hand is a legal entity, like a limited company (besloten vennootschap), it can be difficult to determine what the entity knew. Fragments of information can be present in different parts of the organisation; an officer of the company may have gained his knowledge trough his private life; he may also have a duty of confidentiality.

Read more

23.05.2017 BE law
Verplichte toegang tot breedbandinternet als stedenbouwkundige verplichting: quo vadis?

Articles - Deze blog onderzoekt het toepassingsgebied van de verplichtingen (en eventuele vrijstellingen) uit de gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige verordening inzake breedband. Ook de praktische kant van de zaak komt aan bod: hoe moet hiermee in een vergunningsaanvraag worden omgegaan? Tenslotte worden enkele bedenkingen gemaakt of deze verplichtingen - gelet op hun uiterst geringe stedenbouwkundige impact - wel thuis horen in het domein van de ruimtelijke ordening.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy