SAP and Siemens criticize the draft EU law on data security

SAP and Siemens criticize the draft EU law on data security

Two German technology companies, SAP and Siemens, have entered the US giants in criticizing a draft EU law on using data generated by smart devices and different consumer goods.

EU lawmakers are still operating on the components of the Future Data Act, which the European Commission presented last year.

The draft law, which covers data on consumers and companies in the EU, is characteristic of a set of laws aimed at restraining the power of US tech giants and supporting the EU in achieving its digital and green goals.

Critics from the US said the suggested law was too restrictive. In difference, German companies expressed a provision forcing companies to share data with third parties to provide aftermarket or additional data-based services that could compromise trade secrets.

SAP and Siemens composed a joint letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, and Internal Market and Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton that required data sharing risks sabotaging European competitiveness, including essential knowledge and design data, not only with users but also with third parties.

This could indicate that EU companies would have to reveal data to third-country candidates, especially those not working in Europe and against whom the Data Act’s safeguards would be ineffective.

Tech companies call for safeguards in proposed EU data legislation

Among the signatories of the letter, which Reuters had access to, are the CEOs of the mentioned two companies, as well as the directors of the medical technology company Brainlab, the software company DATEV and the lobby group DigitalEurope.

The letter calls for safeguards allowing companies to deny demands to share data where trade secrets, cyber security, health, and safety are at risk. The range of devices covered by the legislation should stay the same.

As for the provision permitting users to swap between different cloud providers, the companies express that the legislation should maintain freedom of contract by permitting users and providers to compromise on contracts that work best for each business case.