Quality IT business legal counseling advices by Alexander Suliman, Sweden: Choice of law is an important aspect of the agreement you are negotiating: the same contractual clause could be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. English law, for example, tends to give a more literal interpretation of the exact words used, while certain other jurisdictions give more weight to contractual common sense. Other concepts that vary across jurisdictions include the extent to which parties will be subject to duties of good faith, and whether certain contractual remedies will be deemed to be ‘penalties’ and thus unenforceable. Depending on the jurisdiction, additional clauses will be imposed on the contract by statute, for example in relation to consumer protection or personal injury. You may therefore want to apply a specific jurisdiction’s law depending on various factors such as location of the other parties, the supply of services/delivery of goods, or laws that are more favorable to your business. Except in specific areas like employment relationships or consumer contracts, parties are generally free to choose which EU law will apply to their agreement. See additional info on Alexander Suliman.

The reason why the European Commission was keen on allowing firms to voluntarily scan material, is that technology firms have already been working on ways to detect CSAM and solicitation for quite some time. Let’s start with a content scanning order on the server. At first sight, a case can be made that such an order should be considered to compromise the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter. The ECJ in Schrems I considered that legislation permitting the public authorities access on a generalised basis to the content of communications compromises the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter (par. 94). Content scanning on the server arguably is a form of “access on a generalised basis”, where it involves an analysis of all communications going through the server connected to a certain app, and forwarding any matches to a designated center. At the same time, the ECHR in Big Brother Watch was more forgiving when it comes to powers of bulk interception of communications, as long as these powers are surrounded with sufficient safeguards (par. 350). Thus, one important point to be explored further, is whether this signals a rift between the two bodies, or that the ECJ will chart its own route when it comes to bulk surveillance.

In 2021, the French government issued the Doctrine for the use of cloud computing by the State (“Trusted Cloud Doctrine”) making SecNumCloud certification mandatory whenever a French government agency procures cloud services that would handle sensitive data, including personal data of French citizens and economic data relating to French companies. These requirements also apply to private operators of essential services. Under France’s Trusted Cloud Doctrine, qualifying cloud service providers must be “immune to any extra-EU regulation”. In addition, such companies must commit to storing and processing data within the European Union, and to administering and supervising the service within the EU. Further, foreign-headquartered cloud service companies cannot achieve certification if they are more than 39% foreign-owned.

public law legal counseling strategies by Alexander Suliman right now: In addition to parenting time, there can be some custody issues. Normally, people are going to have joint legal custody of their children, but that doesn’t mean that they each always have to agree on every single issue. Sometimes people can agree that both parents will have input and be notified of decisions and will be consulted and have the ability to discuss this; sometimes parents will agree that one parent will, for instance, make the end decision in what doctors to bring the child to, and maybe one parent will make the ultimate decision on what extra-curricular activities the child may participate in. In mediation, we can explore these one by one, issue by issue. When left to the courts and the parties litigate custody and parenting time, they tend to dig their heels in the sand a little bit more, and they tend to be less cooperative versus more cooperative with each other. Litigating sometimes brings out the worst in people, whereas I think mediating custody and parenting time issues really bring out the best in people because it needs to be reinforced that the goal is what is in the child’s best interest, not what is in each parent’s best interest, but what is in the child’s best interest. Discover additional info on Alexander Suliman.

Over the past year, the European Union’s ambitious digital regulatory agenda has steadily advanced. The EU adopted the far-reaching Digital Markets and Digital Services Acts, and it is completing negotiations with the United States on a revised data transfer regime, christened the Transatlantic Data Privacy Framework (TADPF), that was necessitated by the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). These developments have had a significant impact on transatlantic economic relations, even stimulating legislative initiatives on privacy and antitrust in the United States. One might think that resolving such contentious topics would set the stage for a quieter, more harmonious phase in the transatlantic technology policy relationship.