In a question-and-answer section on its website, the French data protection regulator states that none of the extra safeguards presented to it satisfies GDPR standards.
The sole option it proposes to enable the compliant use of Google Analytics is to use a proxy server to stop Google identifying the end user. Website operators will therefore need to review whether this is a cost-effective and technically viable option.
In summary, the CNIL indicates that:
French website operators therefore need to review (1) whether they use Google Analytics and (2) whether proxyfication is a viable option for them.
In February 2022, the CNIL issued its first an official warning to a website publisher which used Google Analytics, because this implied “illegal” transfers of personal data to the United States.
There have been similar findings by regulators in Austria and Italy, demonstrating a movement towards stricter enforcement of GDPR restrictions on data transfers to third countries.
These different regulatory decisions apply the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in July 2020, which held that, under American law, US intelligence authorities had excessive access to personal data.
As a result, the court invalidated the Privacy Shield framework (at the time widely used to justify data transfers from the EU to the USA) and restricted the possibility to use contracts known as Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for the same purpose.
The CNIL decision of February 2022 followed a series of complaints by the data protection activist group NOYB about websites using Google Analytics and Facebook Connect cookies. NOYB’s argument was that, applying Schrems II, the signature of SCCs was not capable of justifying data transfers to the USA by Google and Facebook. The CNIL essentially concurred, considering that, although Google had adopted additional measures to protect data transfers, these were not sufficient to exclude the possibility of access to this data by US intelligence services and that transfers of personal data to the US in this context therefore violated GDPR.