header-logo header-logo

03 September 2021
Issue: 7946 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber , Media
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Can blockchain forget?

To what extent does the right to be forgotten apply to blockchain, the technology behind Bitcoin and other ledger-based systems? Not only is it technically impossible but, following the end of the post-Brexit transition period, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) no longer strictly applies (although the GDPR’s provisions have been incorporated into domestic law).

To what extent does the right to be forgotten apply to blockchain, the technology behind Bitcoin and other ledger-based systems? Not only is it technically impossible but, following the end of the post-Brexit transition period, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) no longer strictly applies (although the GDPR’s provisions have been incorporated into domestic law).

It’s a fascinating conundrum and specialist lawyers may need to be involved in blockchain projects from the outset ‘to assess their suitability for compliance’, according to Dean Armstrong QC & Paul Schwartfeger, of 36 Commercial, writing in this week’s NLJ.

They write: ‘The technology-agnostic nature of the GDPR ignores entirely the realities of whether (and how) the right might be realised.

‘Indeed, when it comes to blockchain, this agnosticism creates something of a paradox. That is that, while the right is legally enshrined, it is also seemingly technically impossible to achieve, given the mantra that data stored on a blockchain is immutable. This fundamental issue, having real relevance to public or permissionless blockchains which, for example, underpin Bitcoin and Ethereum, has been the subject of much debate since the inception of the GDPR.’

In their article, Armstrong & Schwartfeger identify some possible solutions as well as guidance on how data controllers might respond to erasure requests.

Issue: 7946 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber , Media
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll