U S vs EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
1. Overview of GDPR
The GDPR, effective since 2018, is a comprehensive EU regulation that governs data protection and privacy for individuals within the European Union.
Key principles include lawfulness, fairness, transparency, data minimization, purpose limitation, and individuals’ rights (access, correction, erasure, data portability).
GDPR imposes strict obligations on data controllers/processors, including consent requirements, breach notification, and appointing Data Protection Officers.
Non-compliance can lead to significant fines (up to 4% of global annual turnover or €20 million).
2. U.S. Data Privacy Framework
Unlike the GDPR’s comprehensive approach, the U.S. uses a sectoral, fragmented system.
Federal laws like HIPAA (health data), GLBA (financial data), COPPA (children’s online privacy) provide sector-specific protections.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) uses its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to penalize unfair or deceptive practices related to privacy.
Some states, like California, have adopted comprehensive privacy laws (CCPA/CPRA) that are somewhat GDPR-like.
There is no federal omnibus privacy law like GDPR.
🔷 Key U.S. Case Law on Data Privacy & Its Relation to GDPR Principles
✅ 1. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018)
Facts: The government obtained cell-site location data without a warrant.
Issue: Whether accessing historical cell-site location data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that accessing this data requires a warrant.
Significance: This case establishes constitutional limits on government access to personal data, echoing GDPR’s emphasis on lawful processing and privacy rights.
✅ 2. Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016)
Facts: Power Ventures accessed Facebook’s data after users had authorized access but Facebook tried to block them.
Issue: Whether such access violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Holding: The court held that accessing data without permission violates the CFAA.
Significance: Illustrates U.S. legal protection of user data and limitations on third-party access, relating to GDPR’s consent and access control principles.
✅ 3. FTC v. Facebook, 581 F.Supp.3d 22 (D.D.C. 2022)
Facts: The FTC charged Facebook with violating privacy commitments and failing to protect user data.
Issue: Whether Facebook’s practices were unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Holding: The court held Facebook liable and imposed a historic $5 billion fine and new privacy restrictions.
Significance: Shows the FTC’s enforcement role, roughly analogous to GDPR’s regulatory enforcement, but through consumer protection rather than comprehensive data protection law.
✅ 4. In re Google Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, 58 F.Supp.3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
Facts: Google changed its privacy policy to unify data across services, allegedly violating user agreements.
Issue: Whether Google’s actions were deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
Holding: Settled with FTC requiring stronger privacy disclosures and controls.
Significance: Demonstrates regulatory scrutiny on corporate data practices in the U.S., with parallels to GDPR’s transparency and user consent requirements.
✅ 5. In re Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation, 2022 WL 798258 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
Facts: Zoom was sued over security failures exposing user data.
Issue: Whether Zoom’s inadequate security constituted unfair trade practices.
Holding: Courts allowed claims under state consumer protection laws to proceed.
Significance: Reflects growing judicial willingness to hold companies accountable for data protection, similar to GDPR enforcement trends.
🔷 Key Differences & Similarities Between U.S. and GDPR Approaches
| Aspect | EU GDPR | U.S. Data Privacy Regime |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Comprehensive across all sectors | Sectoral, fragmented by industry |
| Data Subject Rights | Extensive (access, deletion, portability) | Limited; varies by statute and state |
| Consent Requirement | Explicit and granular consent mandated | Often implied or broad consent; less stringent |
| Regulatory Enforcement | Dedicated Data Protection Authorities with heavy fines | FTC enforcement via unfair practices; state AGs |
| Data Breach Notification | Mandatory within 72 hours | Sector-specific or state-based notification laws |
| Cross-border Data Transfer | Strict rules, adequacy decisions required | No equivalent; often complex legal mechanisms |
🔷 Conclusion
The GDPR represents a holistic and rights-based approach to data privacy, emphasizing individual control and comprehensive protections. The U.S. system is more fragmented and enforcement-focused, relying on sectoral statutes and consumer protection principles. U.S. courts have increasingly recognized privacy rights under constitutional and statutory law, but the regulatory landscape remains patchy compared to the EU.
The cases illustrate that U.S. courts and regulators are adapting to growing privacy concerns, signaling a gradual convergence toward stronger protections, though still differing in scope and structure from the GDPR model.
RELATED Blog
0 comments