We are subject to a number of laws, rules, directives, and regulations, as well as requirements imposed on us by contracts with clients, relating to the collection, use, retention, storage, destruction, security, processing, transfer, and sharing of personal information about our customers and employees in the countries where we operate. Our business relies on the processing of data in many jurisdictions and the movement of data across national borders. As a result, much of the personal information that we process, especially financial information, is regulated by multiple privacy laws and, in some cases, the privacy laws of multiple jurisdictions. In many cases, these laws apply not only to third-party transactions, but also to transfers of information between or among us, our subsidiaries, and other parties with which we have commercial relationships. These laws and regulations may at times be conflicting, and the requirements to comply with these regulations could result in a negative impact to our business.
Regulatory scrutiny of privacy, data protection, and the collection, use, storage, destruction, security, processing, transfer and sharing of personal information is increasing around the world. There is uncertainty associated with the legal and regulatory environment relating to privacy and data protection laws, which continue to develop in ways we cannot predict, including with respect to evolving technologies such as cloud computing and blockchain technology. Additionally, these laws and regulations may change or be interpreted and applied differently over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it is possible they will be interpreted and applied in ways that will materially and adversely affect our business.
For example, we are subject to enhanced compliance and operational requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), which became effective in May 2018. Since 2016, we have engaged in a large, transformative program regarding data privacy in connection with GDPR compliance requirements. The GDPR applies to companies processing personal data of EU residents, imposes a strict data protection compliance regime with severe penalties for noncompliance of up to the greater of 4% of worldwide annual turnover or €20 million. The penalties for noncompliance with the GDPR could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We have incurred and we expect to continue to incur significant expenses to meet the obligations of the GDPR, which have required us to make significant changes to our business operations.
Although the GDPR applies across the EU without a need for local implementing legislation, each EU member state has the ability to interpret the GDPR opening clauses, which permit country-specific data protection legislation and which have created inconsistencies, on a country-by-country basis. Brexit and ongoing developments in the UK have created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the UK and could result in the application of new data privacy and protection laws and standards to our operations in the UK, our handling of personal data of users located in the UK, and transfers of personal data between the EU and UK. The UK GDPR, effective as of January 1, 2021, and the UK Data Protection Act of 2018 (as amended on January 1, 2021) and which supplements the UK GDPR, now apply to our processing of personal data in the UK and elsewhere, if the processing is of UK residents. While the UK GDPR broadly mirrors the GDPR, the UK Government has indicated an intention to diverge from some areas of European legislation and following Consultation, a new Bill is now underway with respect to changes to the UK's Data Protection Act 2018. In respect of the transfer of personal data from the EU to the UK under the GDPR, the UK and EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement ("TCA") permitted data transfers from the EU to the UK to continue without restriction for four months post-Brexit (including a potential extension of two months) while the EU considered the UK's application for adequacy of its data protection procedures. Such an adequacy decision by the EU was adopted by the European Commission on June 28, 2021 and permits personal data transfers between the EU and UK without further safeguards in place (such as standard contractual clauses). Active changes in law by the UK government to diverge from GDPR, together with an intention not to follow changes being made within the EU, creates an increasing risk of divergence between the two and the potential loss of the UK's adequacy decision. If the UK was to lose its adequacy decision from the EU, we may be required to implement new processes and put new agreements in place, such as standard contractual clauses, to govern any transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK and any such changes could impact our ability to transfer personal data from the UK to the EU and other third countries. The divergence of the UK's data protection regime from GDPR could therefore lead to the removal of the European Commission adopted adequacy decision for the UK.
Additionally, Brexit and the subsequent implementation of the UK GDPR and any divergences therefrom expose us to parallel and differing data protection regimes, each of which potentially authorizes similar significant fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations.
Meanwhile, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") issued a decision on July 16, 2020 (commonly known as "Schrems II") invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, a previously lawful mechanism of transfer for personal data from the EU to the United States. While the Schrems II decision did not invalidate standard contractual clauses, another lawful mechanism for making cross-border transfers, the decision has called their validity into question under certain circumstances, and had made the legality of transferring personal information from the EU to the United States more uncertain, and it may require government cooperation to resolve this issue. The issues and risks arising from the Schrems II decision are applied equally to transfers of personal information from the EU to any country which has not received an adequacy finding by the European Commission. Other jurisdictions could require us to make additional changes to the way we conduct our business and transmit data between the United States, the UK, the EU and the rest of the world. We had seen regulatory enforcement action arising from Schrems II, in particular the decisions of some European member state data protection authorities in prohibiting the transfer of Google Analytics data to the United States, the findings of which could apply to other / all transfers of personal data. The above data transfer risks have currently subsided following implementation of the EU / USA Data Transfer Framework ("DPF"), whereby the European Commission adopted its Adequacy decision for the DPF on the 10th July, 2023. This is a modification of the prior EU / US Privacy Shield and means that personal data can be transferred from the EU to companies which self-certify under the DPF without any other data transfer mechanisms (such as Standard Contractual Clauses or Binding Corporate Rules).
Any failure, or perceived failure, by us to comply with our privacy policies, with applicable industry data protection or security standards, with any applicable regulatory requirements or orders, or with privacy, data protection, information security, or consumer protection-related laws and regulations in one or more jurisdictions could result in proceedings or actions against us by data protection authorities, governmental entities or others, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which could subject us to significant awards, fines, sanctions (including prohibitions on the processing of personal information), penalties, judgments, and negative publicity arising from any financial or non-financial damages suffered by any individuals. This could, individually or in the aggregate, materially harm our business. For example, GDPR (and other laws) requires us to delete data when we no longer have an overriding business need to retain such data and to also accept data deletion rights requests. Our systems do not always allow for such data to be deleted and/or to allow the exercise of such rights at all or within the required timeframe. Any failure, or perceived failure, by us to comply with privacy laws could result in proceedings or actions against us by data protection authorities, governmental entities or others, which could subject us to significant awards, fines, sanctions (including prohibitions on the processing of personal information), penalties, judgments, and negative publicity arising from any financial or non-financial damages suffered by any individuals.
Policymakers around the globe are using these GDPR requirements as a reference to adopt new or updated privacy laws that could result in similar or stricter requirements in other jurisdictions. In the United States, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (along with its implementing regulations) restricts certain collection, processing, storage, use and disclosure of personal financial information, requires notice to individuals of privacy practices and provides individuals with certain rights to prevent the use and disclosure of certain nonpublic or otherwise legally protected information. These rules also impose requirements for the safeguarding and proper destruction of such information through the issuance of data security standards or guidelines. In addition, there are new state laws in the United States governing the collection and processing of personal information. Since the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the "CCPA"), this has further been amended as below and there are now multiple states with privacy laws enacted including: California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut. Further, the following states are in the implementation stage for new privacy legislation: Florida, Oregon, Montana, Iowa, Texas, Delaware, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Indiana. In respect of the CCPA, this imposes stringent data privacy and data protection requirements for the personal data of California residents, and provides for government penalties for noncompliance of up to $7,500 per violation, if willful, and provides for a private right of action in the event of a data breach affecting certain un-redacted or non-encrypted personal information of California residents. Implementing regulations for the CCPA were released in August 2020, and on November 3, 2020, California voters approved a new law, the California Privacy Rights Act, which will come into effect on January 1, 2023, applying to personal data collected on or after January 1, 2022. As a result of these constant changes, it is still not certain how the various provisions of the CCPA and the CPRA will be interpreted and enforced. The CPRA expands the rights of consumers and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency, providing the agency with investigative, enforcement and rule-making powers. The effects of the CCPA are potentially far-reaching, however, and may require us to continue to modify our data processing practices and policies and to incur substantial costs and expenses in an effort to comply. Certain other state laws impose or are in the process of imposing similar privacy obligations, including the recently passed VCDPA, that may be different from those under the CCPA, and, in addition, all 50 states have laws with varying obligations to provide notification of security breaches of personal information to affected individuals, state officers and/or others. The use or generation of biometric data as an aid to fraud prevention is becoming increasingly regulated through a patchwork of laws in both the EU and across the United States, with a number of state laws now requiring consent to such use. For example, Illinois has passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), Texas and Washington have passed similar laws, and other states plan to pass similar laws. The application of privacy laws to new technology, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence and machine learning, is not always clear and can pose additional regulatory risk and material harm to our business operations. Increasingly, we are seeing legal developments in respect of AI and which may not always be compatible with privacy laws.
Some jurisdictions are also considering requirements for businesses that collect, process and/or store data within their borders ("data localization"), as well as prohibitions on the transfer of data abroad, leading to technological and operational implications. Other jurisdictions are considering adopting sector-specific regulations for the payments industry, including forced data sharing requirements or additional verification requirements that overlap or conflict with, or diverge from, general privacy rules. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and requirements could result in fines, sanctions or other penalties, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, and reputation. Collective or class-action litigations relating to data privacy violations are permitted under the GDPR and are beginning to arise in the EU, and are no longer unique to the United States. We may also be exposed to similar lawsuits in the UK with respect to Brexit.
Regulation of privacy and data protection and information security often requires monitoring of and changes to our data practices in regard to the collection, use, disclosure, deletion, storage, transfer and/or security of personal information. We have incurred, and may continue to incur, significant expenses to comply with evolving mandatory privacy and security standards and protocols imposed by law, regulation, industry standards, shifting consumer expectations, or contractual obligations. In particular, with laws and regulations, such as the GDPR in the EU, the GDPR in the UK, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA") in Canada (including its provincial laws), developments in South America, and the CCPA, CPRA, VCDPA and BIPA in the United States, imposing new and relatively burdensome obligations, and with substantial uncertainty over the interpretation and application of these and other laws and regulations, we may face challenges in addressing their requirements and making necessary changes to our policies and practices, and may incur significant costs and expenses in an effort to do so. New requirements or reinterpretations of existing requirements in these areas, or the development of new regulatory schemes related to the digital economy in general, may also increase our costs and could impact the products and services we offer and other aspects of our business, such as fraud monitoring, the development of information-based products and solutions and technology operations. We may not be able to respond quickly or effectively to regulatory, legislative, and other developments, and these changes may in turn impair our ability to offer our existing or planned features, products, and services and/or increase our cost of doing business. Any of these developments could materially and adversely affect our overall business and results of operations.
In addition, fraudulent activity could encourage regulatory intervention, which could damage our reputation and reduce the use and acceptance of our integrated products and services or increase our compliance costs. Criminals are using increasingly sophisticated methods to capture consumer account information to engage in illegal activities such as counterfeiting or other fraud, including creating fake Paysafe websites or using stolen credentials from the dark web to attack customer accounts, where such customers are using the same credentials across multiple sites or accounts. While we are taking measures we believe will make payments more secure, increased fraud levels involving our products and services, or misconduct or negligence by third parties servicing our products and services, could lead to regulatory intervention, such as enhanced security requirements, as well as damage to our reputation.