Rahul: Absolutely, Neha. Technical specifications – such as for encryption or access controls – are worthless if they cannot be contractually enforced. A clear example is cloud services: After serious incidents like the 2019 Capital One data leak, which resulted from a cloud misconfiguration, it became painfully clear that contracts must impose clear technical security requirements on vendors.

Neha: Yes, and the regulatory consequences underscore that, right? The FTC in FTC v. Wyndham (2015) specifically found that insufficient contractual security obligations and lack of oversight of third-party vendors contributed to Wyndham's liability for the data breach.

Rahul: Exactly. FTC guidance now explicitly advises including specific security expectations in vendor contracts. It's similar for IP protection. Take a hypothetical scenario: IBM licenses an AI tool to Amazon – let's call it "IBM v. Amazon" – without clear contractual clauses on improvements. If Amazon then develops enhancements, a dispute arises over ownership rights. A cross-functional review (Legal + Tech) would have foreseen this gap and included an IP clause for derivative works.

Neha: And such translation errors are not uncommon. In the real Dedalus case, for example, the technical requirement for secure data migration was not reflected contractually. Dedalus did not encrypt the data, leading to a violation. The French data protection authority CNIL criticized the absence of "elementary security measures" and the lack of a contract enforcing them. Your proactive approach closes such gaps by aligning technical specifications with contract clauses. You had a concrete case study on this at MetLife?

Rahul: Correct. Between 2016 and 2020, MetLife developed the "MetLife Xcelerator" digital platform. As GDPR came into force in 2018, the platform had to comply with strict "Privacy by Design" principles – technically, for example: minimal data collection and on-device processing. I led a review with software engineers who decided to use anonymization. I then drafted the user terms and vendor contracts to state that only anonymized data may be shared and no personal data may leave the device. This gave the technical design legal effect.

Neha: That also affected IP rights, right? The app used a machine learning library under an open-source license requiring attribution and no sub-licensing of modifications.

Rahul: Exactly. I worked with the developers to understand this technical license requirement and ensured contracts with end-users and any partners honored those terms. Without this legal protection, MetLife Xcelerator could have inadvertently breached the license and faced copyright claims – similar to the BusyBox GPL cases where companies distributed firmware with GPL code without complying with the license conditions.

Neha: And you went a step further: The app's technical specifications required third-party APIs – like a mapping API – not to store query data.

Rahul: Yes, I then inserted clauses into the API service agreements prohibiting the providers from retaining or misusing the company's data. This protected both privacy and IP – the query patterns were potentially proprietary usage data. Later, an incident actually occurred: A vendor wanted to repurpose usage data for marketing. However, my contractual clause explicitly forbade this, enabling MetLife to legally stop it – thus preventing a data privacy violation.

Neha: That powerfully illustrates how proactively "translating" technical requirements – like "don't reuse data" or "implement security measure X" – into contracts provides legal recourse and deterrence. What legal frameworks support this approach?

Rahul: There's no law explicitly stating "translate tech into contracts." But GDPR Article 28 requires contracts with processors to include technical and organizational measures...

***

Read German text here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oEspwKpwMcjlN5BkId5-KTNIs7pywqDbp8g1lYnU2fg/edit?tab=t.0

**