Critics of the law are concerned about its ambiguous language (the kind of language negotiators can agree upon because it doesn't mean anything).

For example, the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or “sexual life” may not be used by a government “unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards.” But the accord does not spell out what would be considered an appropriate safeguard, suggesting that each government may decide for itself whether it is complying with the rule.

“I am very worried that once this will be adopted, it will serve as a pretext to freely share our personal data with anyone, so I want it to be very clear about exactly what it means and how it will work,” said Sophia in ’t Veld, a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands who has been an outspoken advocate of privacy rights.

The administration can't authorize a lawsuit against the United States without asking Congress to pass a law.

The administration is trying to achieve an agreement that would not require Congressional action, [Stewart] Baker [from Homeland Security] said.

The administration would like to convince the Europeans that some sort of administrative review process can be provided to resolve claims fairly. As if. Don't fall for it, Europe!