Photo of Mark Young

Mark Young

Mark Young, an experienced tech regulatory lawyer, advises major global companies on their most challenging data privacy compliance matters and investigations.

Mark also leads on EMEA cybersecurity matters at the firm. He advises on evolving cyber-related regulations, and helps clients respond to incidents, including personal data breaches, IP and trade secret theft, ransomware, insider threats, and state-sponsored attacks.

Mark has been recognized in Chambers UK for several years as "a trusted adviser - practical, results-oriented and an expert in the field;" "fast, thorough and responsive;" "extremely pragmatic in advice on risk;" and having "great insight into the regulators."

Drawing on over 15 years of experience advising global companies on a variety of tech regulatory matters, Mark specializes in:

  • Advising on potential exposure under GDPR and international data privacy laws in relation to innovative products and services that involve cutting-edge technology (e.g., AI, biometric data, Internet-enabled devices, etc.).
  • Providing practical guidance on novel uses of personal data, responding to individuals exercising rights, and data transfers, including advising on Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) and compliance challenges following Brexit and Schrems II.
    Helping clients respond to investigations by data protection regulators in the UK, EU and globally, and advising on potential follow-on litigation risks.
  • GDPR and international data privacy compliance for life sciences companies in relation to:
    clinical trials and pharmacovigilance;

    • digital health products and services; and
    • marketing programs.
    • International conflict of law issues relating to white collar investigations and data privacy compliance.
  • Cybersecurity issues, including:
    • best practices to protect business-critical information and comply with national and sector-specific regulation;
      preparing for and responding to cyber-based attacks and internal threats to networks and information, including training for board members;
    • supervising technical investigations; advising on PR, engagement with law enforcement and government agencies, notification obligations and other legal risks; and representing clients before regulators around the world; and
    • advising on emerging regulations, including during the legislative process.
  • Advising clients on risks and potential liabilities in relation to corporate transactions, especially involving companies that process significant volumes of personal data (e.g., in the adtech, digital identity/anti-fraud, and social network sectors.)
  • Providing strategic advice and advocacy on a range of EU technology law reform issues including data privacy, cybersecurity, ecommerce, eID and trust services, and software-related proposals.
  • Representing clients in connection with references to the Court of Justice of the EU.

The UK Government has announced plans to introduce new rules on online advertising for online platforms, intermediaries, and publishers.  The aim is to prevent illegal advertising and to introduce additional protections against harmful online ads for under-18s.  Full details are set out in its recently published response (“Response”) to the Department for Culture, Media & Sport’s 2022 Online Advertising Programme Consultation (“Consultation”). 

The new rules would sit alongside the proposed UK Online Safety Bill (“OSB”), which addresses rules on user-generated content (see our previous blog here).  Since the EU’s Digital Services Act (which starts to apply from February 2024, see our previous blog here) will not apply in the UK following Brexit, the OSB and any new rules following this Response, form the UK’s approach to regulating these matters, as distinct from the EU.

Continue Reading Further Regulation of Illegal Advertising: UK Government Publishes Response to its Online Advertising Programme Consultation

On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). The decision, which took effect on the day of its adoption, concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EEA to companies certified to the DPF. This blog summarizes the key findings of the decision, what organizations wishing to certify to the DPF need to do and the process for certifying, as well as the impact on other transfer mechanisms such as the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”), and on transfers from the UK and Switzerland.

Continue Reading European Commission Adopts Adequacy Decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework

On 21 June 2023, at the close of a roundtable meeting of the G7 Data Protection and Privacy Authorities, regulators from the United States, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Canada and Japan published a joint “Statement on Generative AI” (“Statement”) (available here). In the Statement, regulators identify a range of data protection-related concerns they believe are raised by generative AI tools, including legal authority for processing personal information, and transparency, explainability, and security. The group of regulators also call on companies to “embed privacy in the design conception, operation, and management” of generative AI tools.

In advance of the G7 meeting, on 15 June 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) separately announced that it will be “checking” whether businesses have addressed privacy risks before deploying generative AI, and “taking action where there is risk of harm to people through poor use of their data”.

Continue Reading UK and G7 Privacy Authorities Warn of Privacy Risks Raised by Generative AI

On 29 March 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published updated Guidance on AI and data protection (the “Guidance”) following “requests from UK industry to clarify requirements for fairness in AI”. AI has been a strategic priority for the ICO for several years. In 2020, the ICO published its first set of guidance on AI (as discussed in our blog post here) which it complemented with supplementary recommendations on Explaining Decisions Made with AI and an AI and Data Protection risk toolkit in 2022. The updated Guidance forms part of the UK’s wider efforts to adopt a “pro-innovation” approach to AI regulation which will require existing regulators to take responsibility for promoting and overseeing responsible AI within their sectors (for further information on the UK Government’s approach to AI regulation, see our blog post here).

The updated Guidance covers the ICO’s view of best practice for data protection-compliant AI, as well as how the ICO interprets data protection law in the context of AI systems that process personal data. The Guidance has been restructured in line with the UK GDPR’s data protection principles, and features new content, including guidance on fairness, transparency, lawfulness and accountability when using AI systems.

Continue Reading UK ICO Updates Guidance on Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection

On 29 March 2023, the UK Government published a White Paper entitled “A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation” (“White Paper”). The White Paper elaborates on the approach to AI set out by the Government in its 2022 AI Governance and Regulation Policy Statement (“Policy Statement” – covered in our blog post here). This announcement comes following the Government’s commitments, in the Spring Budget 2023, to build an expert taskforce to develop the UK’s capabilities in AI foundation models and produce guidance on the relationship between intellectual property law and generative AI (for more details of these initiatives, see here).

In its White Paper, the UK Government confirms that, unlike the EU, it does not plan to adopt new legislation to regulate AI, nor will it create a new regulator for AI (for further details on the EU’s proposed AI regulation see our blog posts here and here). Instead, the UK would require existing regulators, including the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), to take responsibility for the establishment, promotion, and oversight of responsible AI in their respective sectors. Regulators’ activities would be reinforced by the establishment of new support and oversight functions within central Government. This approach is already beginning to play out in certain regulated areas in the UK. For example, in October 2022, the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) jointly released a Discussion Paper on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning considering how AI in financial services should be regulated and, in March 2023, the ICO updated its Guidance on AI and Data Protection.  

Continue Reading UK Government Adopts a “Pro-Innovation” Approach to AI Regulation

Facial recognition technology (“FRT”) has attracted a fair amount of attention over the years, including in the EU (e.g., see our posts on the European Parliament vote and CNIL guidance), the UK (e.g., ICO opinion and High Court decision) and the U.S. (e.g., Washington state and NTIA guidelines). This post summarizes two recent developments in this space: (i) the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”)’s announcement of a £7.5-million fine and enforcement notice against Clearview AI (“Clearview”), and (ii) the EDPB’s release of draft guidelines on the use of FRT in law enforcement.

Continue Reading Facial Recognition Update: UK ICO Fines Clearview AI £7.5m & EDPB Adopts Draft Guidelines on Use of FRT by Law Enforcement

On December 15, 2020, the European Commission published its proposed Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services, more commonly known as the Digital Services Act (“DSA Proposal”).  In publishing the Proposal, the Commission noted that its goal was to protect consumers and their fundamental rights online, establish an accountability framework for online services, and foster innovation, growth and competitiveness in the single market.  On the same day, the Commission also published its proposal for a Digital Markets Act (“DMA”), which would impose new obligations and restrictions on online services that act as “designated gatekeepers” (see our analysis of the DMA Proposal here).

Continue Reading EU Publishes Proposal For Digital Services Act

On 25 November 2020, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (“Data Governance Act”).  The proposed Act aims to facilitate data sharing across the EU and between sectors, and is one of the deliverables included in the European Strategy for Data, adopted in February 2020.  (See our previous blog here for a summary of the Commission’s European Strategy for Data.)  The press release accompanying the proposed Act states that more specific proposals on European data spaces are expected to follow in 2021, and will be complemented by a Data Act to foster business-to-business and business-to-government data sharing.

The proposed Data Governance Act sets out rules relating to the following:

  • Conditions for reuse of public sector data that is subject to existing protections, such as commercial confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection;
  • Obligations on “providers of data sharing services,” defined as entities that provide various types of data intermediary services;
  • Introduction of the concept of “data altruism” and the possibility for organisations to register as a “Data Altruism Organisation recognised in the Union”; and
  • Establishment of a “European Data Innovation Board,” a new formal expert group chaired by the Commission.


Continue Reading AI Update: The European Commission publishes a proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (the Data Governance Act)

On 10 September 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published its beta-phase “Accountability Framework” (“Framework”).  The Framework is designed to assist organisations, of any size and across all sectors, in complying with the accountability principle under the GDPR and in meeting the expectations of the ICO.

The Framework will help those within organisations who are responsible for implementing data protection compliance strategies.  The ICO envisages that organisations will use the Framework in conjunction with other relevant guidance and materials available from the ICO.  The ICO emphasises that each organisation must be mindful of its own circumstances when managing data protection risks, and that a “one size fits all” approach should not be adopted.

Continue Reading UK Information Commissioner’s Office Publishes Draft Accountability Framework Tool

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has issued and is consulting on draft guidance about explaining decisions made by AI.  The ICO prepared the guidance with The Alan Turing Institute, which is the UK’s national institute for data science and artificial intelligence.  Among other things, the guidance sets out key principles to follow and steps to take when explaining AI-assisted decisions — including in relation to different types of AI algorithms — and the policies and procedures that organizations should consider putting in place.

The draft guidance builds upon the ICO’s previous work in this area, including its AI Auditing Framework, June 2019 Project ExplAIN interim report, and September 2017 paper ‘Big data, artificial intelligence, machine learning and data protection’.  (Previous blog posts that track this issue are available here.)  Elements of the new draft guidance touch on points that go beyond narrow GDPR requirements, such as AI ethics (see, in particular, the recommendation to provide explanations of the fairness or societal impacts of AI systems).  Other sections of the guidance are quite technical; for example, the ICO provides its own analysis of the possible uses and interpretability of eleven specific types of AI algorithms.

Organizations that develop, test or deploy AI decision-making systems should review the draft guidance and consider responding to the consultation. The consultation is open until January 24, 2020.  A final version is expected to be published later next year.

Continue Reading UK ICO and The Alan Turing Insitute Issue Draft Guidance on Explaining Decisions Made by AI