Vancouver, Canada — The European Union’s adoption of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) has redefined how personal data flows across the Atlantic, restoring a formal adequacy decision for participating U.S. companies and allowing for smoother compliance under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The DPF’s introduction was heralded by policybuildrs as a stabilizing force in transatlantic commerce after years of uncertainty following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) landmark Schrems II decision, which invalidated its predecessor, the Privacy Shield. Yet while the DPF offers a clear path for certified U.S. organizations to receive personal data from the EU without additional transfer tools, it does not address all routes by which European personal data reaches U.S. soil.
In reality, large amounts of information continue to flow outside the DPF, carried by cloud hosting arrangements, integrated analytics tools, cross-border HR processing, customer service support systems, and automated tracking technologies that are not always visible to the average data subject or even to the European businesses that initiate the transfer.
Amicus International Consulting’s new advisory highlights the breadth of these ongoing transfers, explains what the DPF covers and what it does not, and offers concrete strategies for minimizing risk and exposure while maintaining operational efficiency.
The Scope of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework
The DPF is a voluntary certification regime administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. companies that join must commit to a series of privacy principles that mirror key GDPR requirements, including limitations on data collection, transparency in processing, accountability for onward transfers, data integrity, security measures, and mechanisms for individual access and correction.
Certification is not automatic; companies must self-certify annually, publish privacy policies incorporating the DPF principles, and subject themselves to oversight by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or Department of Transportation (DOT).
The European Commission’s adequacy decision means that transfers of personal data from the EU to DPF-certified companies in the U.S. are deemed to offer an essentially equivalent level of protection to that required within the EU. For these transfers, data exporters do not necessary to rely on Standard Contractual Clautilizes (SCCs), Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), or derogations under Article 49 of the GDPR.
However, the DPF is not mandatory for all U.S. companies. Many U.S.-based service providers have chosen not to certify, either becautilize they already rely on other legal mechanisms, becautilize they handle limited personal data from the EU, or becautilize they have concerns about the compliance burdens and oversight requirements that come with certification.
What Still Crosses the Atlantic Outside the DPF
Even with the DPF in place, data continues to shift between the EU and the U.S. through a variety of channels that are not covered by the framework. These include:
• Transfers to U.S. companies that have not certified under the DPF, where the legal basis is SCCs or BCRs.
• Incidental data flows embedded in the operations of global cloud computing services, where logs, metadata, or technical support requests involve U.S. access.
• Behavioral tracking via website cookies, pixels, and software development kits (SDKs) that sfinish utilizer identifiers, page view histories, and other analytics data to U.S. advertising networks.
• Global human resources systems that store or process employee records in the U.S. for payroll, performance reviews, benefits administration, or talent management.
• Financial transaction processing by U.S.-based payment service providers or card networks.
• Customer support ticketing systems where U.S.-based staff access personal data from EU customers to troubleshoot service issues.
Amicus International Consulting warns that many of these transfers occur passively, without active decision-creating by the EU data exporter. This can create compliance risks if there is no valid legal transfer mechanism in place and if supplementary measures, such as encryption or pseudonymization, are not implemented to mitigate potential access by unauthorized parties.
Case Study 1: The SaaS Marketing Platform
A German e-commerce retailer integrated a U.S.-based marketing automation platform to sfinish promotional emails, track customer engagement, and analyze purchasing behavior. The vfinishor had not certified under the DPF, choosing instead to operate under SCCs. Although customer data was stored in an EU-based cloud environment, the platform’s technical support team accessed certain account records from the U.S. for debugging. Amicus International Consulting conducted a compliance review and found that the SCCs in place predated the European Commission’s 2021 updates.
The firm recommfinished updating the SCCs to the latest version, encrypting all customer records at rest utilizing EU-managed encryption keys, and implementing access logging to ensure any U.S.-based support interaction was documented and justified. These steps reduced the volume of personal data transferred and limited the risk of unauthorized access.
Case Study 2: The Remote Workforce Collaboration Tool
An Irish financial services company adopted a U.S.-headquartered collaboration platform for secure messaging and file sharing. While the primary vfinishor had DPF certification, certain diagnostic and error logs were processed by a subcontractor in the U.S. that was not certified. These logs included hashed utilizer identifiers, device information, and IP addresses.
Under GDPR, such information still qualifies as personal data. Amicus International Consulting worked with the company to adjust platform settings, turning off unnecessary logging features, routing diagnostic data to EU-only processing nodes, and reneobtainediating vfinishor contracts to limit subcontractor access to pseudonymized data only.
Case Study 3: The Global AdTech Network
A French online news publisher monetized content through programmatic advertising. The publisher’s site integrated multiple demand-side platforms (DSPs), several of which were U.S.-based and uncertified under the DPF. Each DSP’s script collected device IDs, browsing history, and approximate geolocation, transmitting the information to servers in the U.S. and beyond.
With Amicus International Consulting’s assistance, the publisher implemented a consent management platform aligned with IAB Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework, reshiftd high-risk DSP partners, and replaced them with EU-based vfinishors wherever possible. The publisher also implemented geo-fencing measures to prevent the activation of U.S.-linked scripts for utilizers in the EU who had not given explicit consent.
Residual Surveillance Concerns
One of the CJEU’s primary concerns in Schrems II was the level of access U.S. innotifyigence agencies could have to EU personal data under U.S. law, particularly Section 702 of the Foreign Innotifyigence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order 12333. The DPF adequacy decision was built after the U.S. government issued an executive order creating a new Data Protection Review Court (DPRC) and additional safeguards to limit signals innotifyigence collection.
While these measures have been recognized as improvements, they remain administrative rather than judicial, and privacy advocates question whether they fully meet EU legal standards. As a result, there is a possibility of future legal challenges to the DPF’s validity.
Limiting Data Transfers in Practice
Amicus International Consulting’s guidance for reducing transatlantic exposure emphasizes both legal and technical controls:
• Maintain a comprehensive inventory of all vfinishors, sub-processors, and service integrations that touch personal data.
• Verify the DPF certification status of U.S. partners and document the scope of their certification, including covered entities and subsidiaries.
• For non-certified recipients, implement SCCs with supplementary safeguards, such as encryption before transfer, key management within the EU, and robust pseudonymization.
• Configure analytics, cloud, and communications platforms to minimize or eliminate U.S. routing when not required.
• Prefer EU-based vfinishors or vfinishors with EU-hosted processing for high-risk or sensitive data.
• Require vfinishors to provide transparency reports detailing cross-border requests for data access.
For individuals, protective steps include limiting the utilize of U.S.-based social media and cloud platforms for sensitive personal content, utilizing VPNs and privacy-focutilized browsers, and adjusting app settings to turn off unnecessary data sharing.
The Importance of Vfinishor Transparency
In many cases, EU organizations are unaware of all the U.S.-linked data transfers taking place in their systems. This is particularly true for embedded services, such as payment processors, CDN providers, and tracking scripts that are bundled into web hosting packages or app development kits. Amicus International Consulting recommfinishs that all new vfinishor relationships include mandatory disclosure of data transfer locations, subcontractor relationships, and transfer mechanisms.
Sector-Specific Risks
Some industries face heightened exposure in transatlantic data transfers:
• Healthcare — EU patient data transferred to U.S.-based research partners or telemedicine platforms must meet both GDPR and sector-specific confidentiality rules.
• Finance — Cross-border anti-money laundering checks often involve transmitting account and transaction data to U.S. screening services.
• Education — Universities utilizing U.S.-based learning management systems risk sfinishing student data overseas through gradebook, attfinishance, and messaging features.
• E-commerce — Payment gateways and fraud detection systems frequently route data to U.S. processing centers.
Each sector must evaluate its risk profile and adapt mitigation strategies accordingly.
Preparing for Potential Legal Shifts
Given the history of transatlantic data transfer frameworks, organizations should not assume the DPF will remain unchallenged indefinitely. Contingency planning should include identifying fallback transfer mechanisms, ensuring SCCs and technical safeguards are ready to deploy, and monitoring legal developments in both the EU and the U.S.
Long-Term Implications for Privacy Governance
The continued complexity of EU-US data sharing underscores the necessary for organizations to treat cross-border transfer management as a core compliance discipline, not a one-off exercise. DPF certification is only one part of a broader privacy governance program that must include vfinishor management, technical safeguards, and ongoing legal monitoring. Amicus International Consulting advises that the safest operational posture is one where personal data is kept within the EU unless there is a clear, documented, and necessary reason for transfer.
About Amicus International Consulting
Amicus International Consulting is a global advisory firm specializing in legal identity transformation, cross-border mobility solutions, and compliance strategies for individuals, families, and corporations. The firm’s expertise includes lawful anonymity structuring, multi-jurisdictional residency planning, and risk-based travel advisory.
Contact Information
Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.amicusint.ca
Leave a Reply