In September 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission fined Meta Ireland 91 million euros after passwords of social media users were stored in 'plaintext' on Meta's internal systems rather than with cryptographic protection or encryption. In May 2023, the EU fined Meta 1.2 billion euros for violating laws on digital privacy and putting the data of EU citizens at risk through Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers. European privacy legislation is seen as being far stricter than American privacy law, and the sending of EU citizens’ data to the United States resulted in the record breaking penalty being issued to the tech giant. In January 2023, after it was discovered that Meta Platforms had improperly required that users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp accept personalized adverts to use the platforms, the company was issued a 390 million euro fine by the European Commission. EU regulators claim that the social media giant broke the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by including the demand in its terms of service. In addition, Meta was fined 405 million euros by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) in September 2022 for violating Instagram's children's privacy settings. In November 2022, the DPC fined Meta a further 265 million euros for failing to protect their users from data scraping. GDPR violations in 2022 Social media sites and companies are not the only types of online services upon which users' data can potentially be compromised. In 2022, the online service with the biggest fine for violating GDPR was e-commerce and digital powerhouse Amazon, which was issued a 746 million euro fine. Furthermore, in December 2021, Google was penalized 90 million euros for GDPR violations. What are the most common GDPR violations? Since GDPR went into effect in May 2018, fines have been imposed for a variety of reasons. As of June 2022, companies' non-compliance with general data processing principles accounted for the largest share of fines, resulting in over 845 million euros worth of penalties. Insufficient legal basis for data processing was the second most common violation, amounting to 447 million euros in fines.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to health, society and economy, including to the conduct of clinical research. In the European Union (EU), the legal and ethical framework for research is complex and divergent. Many challenges exist in relation to the interplay of the various applicable rules, particularly with respect to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study aimed to gain insights into the experience of key clinical research stakeholders [investigators, ethics committees (ECs), and data protection officers (DPOs)/legal experts working with clinical research sponsors] across the EU and the UK on the main challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. Survey data was analyzed descriptively, and the interviews underwent a framework analysis.Results and conclusionIn total, 191 respondents filled in the survey, of whom fourteen participated in the follow-up interviews. Out of the targeted 28 countries (EU and UK), 25 were represented in the survey. The majority of stakeholders were based in Western Europe. This study empirically elucidated numerous key legal and ethical issues related to GDPR compliance in the context of (cross-border) clinical research. It showed that the lack of legal harmonization remains the biggest challenge in the field, and that it is present not only at the level of the interplay of key EU legislative acts and national implementation of the GDPR, but also when it comes to interpretation at local, regional and institutional levels. Moreover, the role of ECs in data protection was further explored and possible ways forward for its normative delineation were discussed. According to the participants, the pandemic did not bring additional legal challenges. Although practical challenges (for instance, mainly related to the provision of information to patients) were high due to the globally enacted crisis measures, the key problematic issues on (cross-border) health research, interpretations of the legal texts and compliance strategies remained largely the same.

Snapshot img { margin: 10px !important; }

The data center construction market size in Western Europe is expected to grow by USD 6.72 billion and record a CAGR of 9.18% during 2021-2025.

This post-pandemic data center construction market in Western Europe report has assessed the shift in consumer behavior and has identified and explored the upcoming trends and drivers that the vendors can capitalize on to support prompt business decisions. In this data center construction market in Western Europe analysis report, key drivers such as the release of general data protection regulation have been discussed with emerging growth regions, which will offer immense business opportunities. Our analysts have also identified challenges such as the impact of Brexit, which will impede market growth. With these insights, the vendors can recreate their plan of action to obtain growth opportunities in the future.

What will the Data Center Construction Market Size in Western Europe be in 2021?

Browse TOC and LoE with selected illustrations and example pages of Data Center Construction Market in Western Europe

Get Your FREE Sample Now!

Who are the Key Vendors in the Data Center Construction Market in Western Europe?

The data center construction market in Western Europe forecast report provides insights on complete key vendor profiles and their business strategies to reimage themselves. The profiles include information on the production, competitive landscape, sustainability, and prospects of the leading companies including:

• ABB Ltd.
• AECOM
• Cisco Systems Inc.
• Dell Technologies Inc.
• Eaton Corporation Plc
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP
• Honeywell International Inc.
• International Business Machines Corp.
• Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd.
• Schneider Electric SE

The data center construction market in Western Europe is fragmented and the vendors are deploying various growth strategies to compete in the market. Click here to uncover other successful business strategies deployed by the vendors.

This data center construction market in Western Europe report further entails segmentation by construction type (electrical construction, general construction, and mechanical construction) and geography (the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, France, and the rest of Western Europe). View our sample report to gather market insights on the segmentations.

To make the most of the opportunities, vendors should focus on fast-growing segments, while maintaining their positions in the slow-growing segments. Fetch actionable market insights on post COVID-19 impact on each product and service segments.

Which are the Key Regional Markets for Data Center Construction Market in Western Europe?

<a href="/talk-to-us?report=IRTNTR70624&type=sample&src=report&am

Please provide the following 1. The number of Vaccine Damage Payments made in each year starting from 2018 to the current year. 2. Please break down the figures by year. 3. Please provide the monetary value of each of those payments. 4. Please provide a brief medical explanation for each payment detailing why the payment was made 5. Please explain how the 60% disability threshold was decided and by whom 6. Please provide what is classed as a 60% disability? Your request was received on 6 July, and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Response All data as of 11 July 2023. The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) took over administration of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on 1 November 2021. All data relating to claims submitted prior to 1 November 2021 was transferred to us from DWP. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the full details where the total number of patients falls below five. This is because the patients could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. This information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose patients’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the patients. Questions 1,2 and 3: 2018: Fewer than five claimants received a Vaccine Damage Payment. Claimants received payments between £100,000 and £120,000. 2019: Fewer than five claimants received a Vaccine Damage Payment. Claimants received payments between £100,000 and £120,000. 2020: Fewer than five claimants received a Vaccine Damage Payment. Claimants received payments between £100,000 and £120,000. 2021: Fewer than five claimants received a Vaccine Damage Payment. Claimants received payments between £100,000 and £120,000. 2022: 33 claimants were notified that they were entitled to a Vaccine Damage Payment of £120,000. Of those, 26 received their payment in 2022. Payment is made to each claimant within 10 working days of supplying us with their bank details. 2023: As of 11 July 2023, 94 claimants have been notified that are entitled to a Vaccine Damage Payment of £120,000. Of those, 78 have received their payment so far. Payment is made to each claimant within 10 working days of supplying us with their bank details. Question 4, 5 and 6 Under the policy of the scheme, payments are made when it can be established, on the balance of probabilities, that the disablement was caused by a vaccine covered by the VDPS, and that the resulting disablement is severe (60% or more). Severely disabled means at least 60% disabled, assessed for the purposes of section 103 of The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Further principles for assessing the extent of disablement are set out in the Social Security (General Benefit) Regulations 1982 (legislation.gov.uk). The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is responsible for the policy and legislation that governs the VDPS.