The Cross-Border Data Forum and Alston & Bird are pleased to present a panel on a question that has become pressing since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held that the President may remove a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission without cause.
In its 2023 adequacy decision on the EU–U.S. Data Privacy Framework, the European Commission found that the United States ensures a level of protection “essentially equivalent” to that guaranteed in the EU. One of the elements EU law requires for such a finding is effective independent oversight: in the Commission’s words, “an independent supervisory authority tasked with powers to monitor and enforce compliance with the data protection rules should be in place.” On the commercial side of the Framework, the Commission relied on the FTC to play that role, at a time when FTC Commissioners were protected against removal at will under Humphrey’s Executor (1935). Slaughter has removed that protection, and the question arises whether the overall safeguards for data protection in the U.S. continue to provide “essential equivalence.” That question is distinct from the redress mechanism for U.S. government access to data, which rests on a different legal basis. No, Trump v. Slaughter does not undo the EU-US data-transfer redress mechanism | IAPP
The panel will look at one part of the U.S. enforcement landscape that has received little attention in the European debate: State Attorneys General. In every state, state AGs have broad legal authority to enforce laws that protect individuals, including for “deceptive” practices such as violations of a company’s own privacy commitments, and many now also enforce comprehensive state privacy statutes. State AGs are not subject to direction or removal by the President, and they have brought numerous privacy enforcement actions, several resulting in very large settlements. In parallel, the panel will set out what EU law requires of independent supervision, as developed by the Court of Justice, including the requirement of “complete independence” and the significance, in that case law, of political accountability, which is directly relevant given that AGs are elected in 43 states. The panel will then ask, openly, how far state enforcement bears on the assessment of essential equivalence. The aim is not to reach a verdict but to map the questions carefully. The panel is part of ongoing research by the CBDF about the role of state AGs in privacy enforcement.
Moderator
- Peter Swire, CBDF Research Director; Georgia Tech School of Cybersecurity and Privacy; Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird (Atlanta)
Speakers
- Theodore Christakis, CBDF European Research Director, Université Grenobles Alpes
- DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, CBDF Senior Fellow, Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business
- Alice Portnoy, Senior Associate, Alston & Bird (Brussels)
CLE
CLE Credit will be applied for, where applicable.
Questions
Please contact Abby Forness at abby.forness@alston.com.