Outside counsel drafts a 2026 transfer clause that still relies on the US–EU Safe Harbor framework as the transfer mechanism. What historical point should the privacy team raise?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Safe Harbor is a museum piece, not a living transfer tool. The CJEU knocked it down in Schrems, so sticking it in a 2026 contract is like citing a revoked driver’s licence. Point counsel to current mechanisms instead of that retired framework.
Full Explanation
The Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the Safe Harbor adequacy arrangement in Schrems (Schrems I). It is therefore not an available mechanism for contemporary transfers. Teams should rely on current tools such as a valid adequacy decision, the EU–US Data Privacy Framework where applicable, SCCs, BCRs, or other recognised safeguards or derogations. Safe Harbor does not survive as an employee-only or seal-based pathway.