Blog

Now more than ever, the technological revolution is pushing the boundaries of usual practices in all spheres of our society, including the dispute resolution field. The question is whether justice, the epitome of human creation, will one day also be replaced by artificial intelligence ("AI"). In this blog we look at some examples of how and where technology has already impacted the adjudicatory process as well as the current discussion on whether it is advisable or not to automate judicial decision-making processes.

Chatbot technology is disrupting the ways in which companies interact and engage with their customers. As software has become more and more sophisticated and artificial intelligence and natural language processing more developed, the use of chatbots has significantly increased in the last few years and is expected to grow further. In this blog post, we will provide an overview of the legal considerations connected with the use of chatbots.

Today, 8 September 2020, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner ("FDPIC") issued a press release announcing it no longer considers the Swiss-US Privacy Shield regime to provide an adequate level of data protection. The FDPIC has taken its time to consider the July 2020 Schrems II decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), which found the EU-US Privacy Shield to be inadequate. It has now issued this decision on the basis of its own annual assessment of the virtually identical Swiss-US Privacy Shield.

On the 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") finally rendered its long-awaited judgement in the Case C-311/18, Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland & Schrems ("Schrems II") on the validity of Standard Contractual Clauses ("SCC") as a transfer mechanism for transferring personal data from the EU/ EEA to third countries under the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). In its decision, the CJEU considers that the Commission Decision 2010/87 on standard contractual clauses is valid. However, in its decision, the CJEU also ruled on the adequacy provided by the EU-US Data Protection Shield and invalidated the protection afforded by this Decision.

Swiss data protection law also uses the protection of the SCCs and the Privacy Shield as mechanisms for data transfers. Both in Switzerland and the EU many businesses rely heavily on the SCCs and the Privacy Shield for their data transfers to countries outside of the EU/EEA or Switzerland. As a result of the CJEU's judgement, businesses will need to take immediate action or be in breach of data protection laws. Find out in our blog what this landmark decision from the CJEU means for your business.

If you are a start-up or established business providing online intermediation services or offering a search engine for business and corporate website users in the European Union, then you might have to update your terms and conditions because of a new EU Regulation. The Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, which enters into effect on 12 July 2020, applies to businesses both in and outside the EU. The Regulation sets out several obligations for service providers, including requirements with regard to the terms and conditions of the service provider.

Find out in our blog whether the Regulation applies to you and how you will have to change your terms and conditions.

Artificial Intelligence («AI») has and will continue to have an increasing impact on our everyday lives. Although AI in general is only at its inception phase, when it comes to medicine it already has a track record in particular in terms of pattern recognition. The application of machine learning systems may even help to develop and fight the current Covid-19 crisis. At the same time, this adds to the need to find out how AI should be addressed from a legal perspective, which the European Union («EU») White Paper on Artificial Intelligence intends to outline.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has already started to revolutionise workplaces and is affecting both employers and employees in many ways. The purpose of this blog post is to provide an overview of some of the workplace areas which are significantly impacted by AI, from recruitment through performance assessment to remote working and robotics, and to set out the benefits as well as some potential dangers connected with each of them.

Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist, has brought yet another data protection case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The outcome of this case will be decisive for everyone who transfers data to non-EU countries. The decision in the case has the potential to force a wide range of businesses to make huge changes in their data management.

As part of our firms' innovative character, three focus areas have been created, one of them being "Artificial Intelligence and Digitalisation". Aside from growing our core practice, we strongly believe that our clients will have a growing need for competent legal advice in this area, in particular as an increasing number of companies are using Artificial Intelligence (AI), be it to classify and label documents, translate emails, make recruitment decisions, or recommend what to buy or watch next. Aside from the question of how to responsibly implement such technology in businesses, we first need to understand what AI is. As part of our AI series and to help you tackle your next AI project, we have drafted a list of terms that may prove helpful to you.

On 26 June 2019, the Federal Council assigned the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA) to conduct a consultation procedure on the amendment of the Federal Narcotics Act (NarcA), which will last until 17 October 2019. The planned amendment to the NarcA aims to facilitate and expand the handling of medicinal cannabis that is exempt from a special approval of the Federal Office of Public Health. In particular, the traffic ban on cannabis narcotics for medicinal purposes is to be lifted, which should lead to limited tradability.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has published guidelines on the use of processing of personal data necessary for the performance of a contract as a legal basis under Art. 6.1 lit. b General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The guidelines are now in the public consultation phase.

The media has given increased coverage to cybersecurity issues over the last couple of months, addressing in particular the US race against China to build the fifth generation of wireless technology (5G technology) and its security aspects. Although there is a widespread worry of increased cyber intrusions once 5G technology is widely available, there is also a huge possibility for new internet-based services. This is because 5G is designed to provide users with a much faster wireless connection allowing for new innovations in different areas (e.g. Internet of Things) to become a more integrated part of our daily lives.

In this episode of LexCast hosted by Froriep, Nicola Benz Managing Partner of FRORIEP talking to immigration law specialist Daisy Vacher about Brexit and Swiss immigration.

Even if a contract designates "Swiss law" as the governing law, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the "Vienna Convention" or "CISG") could in principle apply. Where it applies, the CISG takes precedence over the ordinary national laws. This is often overlooked by the parties at the time they negotiate and sign the contract, and at the point they find themselves in dispute.

A potential reality coming to Switzerland may see every photo or snap protected by copyright; does this mean that there is now remuneration due for every picture on my website or social media site?

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) following its fourth plenary session on November 16th of this year has published guidelines on the territorial scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for public consultation. The public consultation will be organised from 23 November 2018 to 18 January 2019.

One of the requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is that controllers of personal data have written contracts with each of their processors, meaning the people and entities processing personal data on the controller's behalf. 

Under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), all websites that process personal data must have a link to a data privacy notice that explains what personal data is collected and processed and for what purposes.

Outsourcing of certain business processes is standard for most companies these days, even for small and mid-size companies. Through outsourcing, business processes within a group of companies can be handled efficiently or access to an advanced IT infrastructure can be made possible. Outsourcing usually involves transferring personal data, such as employee data, customer data or supplier data. The outsourcing provider is a processor, the outsourcing customer is a controller. So far so good. But what if the provider uses the data for its own purposes too? And what if the customer is told what to do by the processor when processing the data? This article explains on which basis the individual roles of controller and processor can be determined taking into account the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

FRORIEP is Swiss Law Firm of the year winning the title at The Lawyer European Awards on 15 March 2018 in London.

The Information Commissioner's Office from the United Kingdom recently published a GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) self-assessment toolkit on its website. 

FRORIEP and RENTSCH PARTNER are joining forces. As independent firms in close cooperation, we are one of the leading competence centres in the area of commercial and technology law in Switzerland. For Swiss and international clients.

FRORIEP was honored to welcome on Monday January 30, 2017 in cooperation with NextGen CH, 80 young professionals to their newly renovated offices in Zurich, to give them a platform for networking as well as growing their career.

Panama is synonymous with its Canal and the Canal dominates much of the discussion in Panama, as I learnt at the International Trademark Association Leadership Meeting I recently attended in Panama City. One particularly interesting discussion that I participated in revolved around the trade in counterfeit goods through the Canal.