Engaging vendors in the financial sector: EDPB clarifications mean more mapping and management
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion on 7 October 2024. It gives guidance for data controllers relying on processors (and sub-processors) under the GDPR. The two key themes are:
- supply chain mapping;
- verifying compliance with flow-down obligations.
For many financial institutions, the emphasis on these obligations should not come as a surprise. However, there are some nuanced clarifications in the opinion which could have an impact on general vendor management in the financial services sector. We have summarised the key takeaways. Do reach out if you would like to discuss further. Or, if you are struggling to map these requirements against other emerging laws i.e. DORA or NIS2. We can help you look at the data and cyber contractual commitments in your contracts.
Supply Chain Mapping
Controllers should always be able to identify the processing supply chain. This means knowing all processors, and their subprocessors, for all third-party engagements. And not just their identity. The EDPB's opinion clarifies that controllers should know:
- the legal entity name, address and information for a contact person for each processor/subprocessor;
- the data processed by each processor/subprocessor and why; and
- the delimitation of roles where several subprocessors are engaged by the primary processor.
This may seem excessive. However, the practical benefit of knowing this information stems beyond Article 28 compliance. It is also required to discharge transparency obligations under Articles 13 and 14. And to respond to data subject requests (e.g. of access under Article 15 or erasure under Article 19).
How is this achieved in reality? Vendor engagement can be tedious. While many financial institutions have sophisticated vendor onboarding processes, data protection is often an afterthought. Addressed after commercials are finalised.
So, what should you do as a data controller? Revisit your contracts to ensure your processors are obliged to provide the above information proactively. At a frequency and in the format you require.
Verification of Compliance
Controllers should be able to verify and document the sufficiency of safeguards implemented by processors and subprocessors to comply with data laws. In other words, controllers must be able to evidence a processor's compliance with key obligations e.g.:
- making sure personal data is secure; and
- ensuring data is transferred or accessed internationally in line with the requirements of Chapter V.
The nature of this verification and documentation will vary depending on the risk associated with the processing activity. A low-risk vendor, from a commercial business perspective, may provide a service involving high-risk data processing. In this case, verification might involve seeking a copy of the subprocessor contract to review it. For lower-risk processing, verification could be limited to confirming a subprocessor contract is in place.
The EDPB suggests controllers can rely on information received from their processor and build on it. For example, through diligence questionnaires, publicly available information, certifications, and audit reports.
Where the primary processor is also an exporter of personal data outside the EEA, the EDPB clarified that the obligation is on the exporting processor to ensure there is an appropriate transfer mechanism in place with the importing subprocessor. Also to ensure a transfer impact assessment has been carried out. The controller should verify the transfer impact assessment and make amends if necessary. Otherwise, controllers can rely on the exporting processor's transfer impact assessment if deemed adequate. The verification required here will depend on whether it is an initial or onward transfer, and what lawful basis is used for the transfer. This does not impact the controller's obligation to carry out transfer mapping where it engages primary processors themselves located outside the EEA.
In that regard, the EDPB clarified a subtle but often debated provision of Article 28. The opinion notes that the wording “unless required to do so by law or binding order of a governmental body”, is unlikely to be compliant where data is transferred outside the EEA. It is therefore highly recommended to include the wording: “unless required to [process] by Union or Member State law to which the processor is subject.”
Either verbatim or in very similar terms. This is particularly relevant in the context of transfer mapping and impact assessments. Regulated entities should be vigilant for third-party contracts which appear to meet the obligations set out in Article 28(3) with respect to the processing data for purposes outside of the controller's instructions, but are, as confirmed by the EDPB, actually non-compliant.
What steps should you take now then?
The opinion clarifies that controllers can rely on a sample selection of subprocessor contracts to verify downstream compliance and we suggest you do so.
But when?
Regulated entities, particularly in the financial services industry, are facing a swathe of regulations that impact vendor engagement. The Digital Operational Resilience Act and NIS 2 Directive (EU) (2022/2555) require financial institutions to maintain a register of all contractual arrangements with vendors and ensure third-party service providers comply with cybersecurity standards. Effectively, these are enhancements to existing processor requirements under the GDPR. The reality is, however, that many controllers are only now firming up supply chain management to cover key data protection and cyber risks.
We recommend controllers use the clarifications in the EDPB's opinion to improve negotiations when separately looking at uplifts required by DORA which takes effect on 17 January 2025. The clock is ticking.
