For the skimmer/TL;DR'er, note that this article is by an advocacy group presenting their analysis of a situation, and then advocating and taking action on it: "Next Steps: Commission must repeal EU-US deal. noyb ..."

It is not reporting on an opinion of a representative or proxy of the European Commission.

▲

eesmith a day ago | parent [-]

For the skimmer, the advocacy group was founded by Maximilian Schrems, whose legal cases first got the European Court of Justice to overturn the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (which described how a US company could legally store private data on EU citizens), and then got the ECJ to overturn EU–US Privacy Shield, which replaced the Safe Harbor principles.

These decisions are known as Schrems I and Schrems II after the founder of this advocacy group.

The newest version of that data transfer framework is called the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. The European Commission deemed it sufficient, in no small part because they considered it (and more specifically the Data Protection Review Court, an extrajudicial executive branch tribunal) sufficiently independent of the president.

However, in January 2025, Trump fired the Democrat members of the review court, leaving it unable to reach quorum to make decisions, which highlighted it wasn't all that independent. Now it's clearly not independent.

I don't see how a Schrems III is not in the works.

▲

maratc a day ago | parent [-]

You could both be right: Shrems III could be in the works, and TLA could be presenting their legal analysis as an established fact.

In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)

▲

eesmith a day ago | parent | next [-]

I think "noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks", from the person/group who brought us Shrems I and Shrems II, counts enough as "Shrems III could be in the works". Don't you?

The linked article does not present their legal analysis and call for action as established fact.

▲

maratc 21 hours ago | parent [-]

It's ok to disagree. If the SCOTUS decision in question had any wording to the tune of "the EU-US data transfers need to stop," it would be fitting to say that the "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers." However it did not, so it wouldn't.

▲

eesmith 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.

I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there.

It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."

	▲	maratc 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis. I meant that it's ok for you and me to disagree. > I don't know what your point is My point is this: Shrems III may or may not be filed, if and when it's filed the relevant court may or may not decide to review it, if they decide to proceed they may reach many different conclusions, one of the possible outcomes being a blow-up in the EU-US data transfers. Then we will we be able, with the benefit of the hindsight, conclude that the SCOTUS decision in question indeed blew up the transfers. But we're not there yet. At this point in time "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers" is a prediction about the future. It is however written in past perfect tense as if it's already happened. But what's happened is the SCOTUS decision only. Whether it will, or will not, blow up the data transfers — still remains to be seen. I'm not saying that this will not happen; all I'm saying is that "blowing up of the data transfers" will happen when an actual court will decide that it's the consequence, not when some advocacy group will decide that it's the consequence.

▲

tremon 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Alternatively, you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article and see that the actual analysis goes as follows:

a) According to EU treaty law, the oversight on EU-US Data Transfers must be independent

b) In the current EU-US deal, the European Commission relies on the independent FTC 259 times

c) the US Supreme Court decided in Trump v. Slaughter that the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be independent anymore

It is completely immaterial that the Supreme Grift ruling was not about the data transfers itself -- this is just some fallout from an activist court creatively reinterpreting established legal structures.

> (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.

Given that the closing paragraph contains the sentence "given that the US still exercises massive pressure on the EU to keep personal data flowing, noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks, aiming to allow the CJEU to annul the current deal" I think it's pretty clear that it will.