Post-Brexit Compliance: Moving Data Between the EU, UK, and US. Understanding SCCs (Standard Contractual Clauses) and proper assessments.21 | Ultimate Guide For Startups

TL;DR: Post-Brexit Compliance for EU, UK, and US Data Transfers

Table of Contents

Post-Brexit Compliance: Moving Data Between the EU, UK, and US. Understanding SCCs (Standard Contractual Clauses) and proper assessments.21 means you must map where personal data goes, pick the right transfer tool for each route, and keep proof that your transfers are lawful if you sell, hire, or use software across borders.

• SCCs are not enough on their own. You need the right SCC module, the UK Addendum or IDTA for UK transfers, and a real transfer review for EU-US and UK-US data flows. The EU SCC overview explains when these clauses apply.

• Server location does not settle the issue. US support access, subprocessors, admin rights, and disclosure laws can still create transfer risk even when data is hosted in Europe. This is why founders must check access routes, not just storage.

• A good TIA should be short, clear, and real. It should show what data moves, who exports and receives it, which country is involved, what safeguards exist, and why you believe the transfer can go ahead. The European Commission’s SCC Q&A is useful for understanding transfer assessments after Schrems II.

• The business upside is direct. Clean transfer records help you answer buyer security reviews faster, avoid weak privacy claims, and reduce deal friction with enterprise customers.

If your startup uses US SaaS tools or moves data between the EU, UK, and US, review your vendors, contracts, and transfer assessments now.

Check out startup news that you might like:

Breaking Through Creative Ops Bottlenecks: Your 2026 Technology Roadmap by Canto

When your startup finally closes a US client, then legal asks if your data can survive the EU, UK, and SCC obstacle course. Unsplash

Post-Brexit Compliance: Moving Data Between the EU, UK, and US. Understanding SCCs (Standard Contractual Clauses) and proper assessments.21 is now a board-level issue for startups that sell across borders, use US SaaS tools, hire remote teams, or store customer data in more than one country. If you move personal data between the EU, UK, and US, you need to know which transfer tool applies, when Standard Contractual Clauses or the UK addendum are needed, and how to document a real transfer risk review instead of a fake checkbox exercise.

From my point of view as a European founder, this topic is painfully practical. I have built products across Europe, worked with international teams, and seen how founders treat privacy paperwork as background noise until an enterprise buyer asks for transfer maps, vendor terms, and proof that the company actually knows where personal data goes. At that point, weak internal documentation becomes a sales problem, a legal problem, and a trust problem at the same time.

What is post-Brexit data transfer compliance? It is the set of legal and operational rules that govern how personal data moves between the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom, and countries outside those regimes, especially the United States. For startups, it means choosing the right transfer mechanism, checking vendors, updating contracts, and recording why your chosen setup is lawful.

Why this matters for startups: if you use US-based email tools, analytics, cloud hosting, support software, payroll apps, or AI services, you are almost certainly sending personal data outside your home jurisdiction. Unlike a local-only business, a startup often builds on third-party tools from day one, which means cross-border transfers happen long before the founder even notices them.

What will you learn in this guide?

How data transfer rules changed after Brexit for EU-UK-US flows
When SCCs apply, when the UK International Data Transfer Addendum applies, and when other tools may work
What a Transfer Impact Assessment, or TIA, should actually contain
How startup founders can audit vendors, contracts, and data routes without building a giant legal department
The most common transfer mistakes that kill deals or invite regulator attention

Why does post-Brexit compliance matter so much right now?

The challenge is simple to describe and messy to manage. The EU GDPR and UK GDPR now sit close to each other, but they are not identical in administration, transfer paperwork, and regulator expectations. At the same time, many startups still rely on US providers for hosting, CRM, customer support, payments, and product analytics. So one company can face three overlapping legal questions at once: Can we transfer this data out of the EU? Can we transfer it out of the UK? Can a US provider legally receive it under the chosen contract and technical setup?

Reuters recently reported growing European concerns around control of data in Europe and worries linked to US access laws such as the Cloud Act, including pressure for more sovereign cloud options in sensitive sectors. That wider policy direction matters even for startups, because enterprise customers read the same news and then tighten procurement questions. See Reuters on EU data sovereignty concerns and the Cloud Act.

Dark Reading also summarized the tension well: the EU GDPR protects personal data of EU residents wherever processing happens, while the US Cloud Act may allow US authorities to compel access from US companies even when the data sits abroad. That is exactly why transfer assessments cannot stop at “the server is in Europe.” See Dark Reading on data sovereignty and extraterritorial US access risk.

Here is why founders get trapped. They think data location equals compliance. It does not. Control, access, subprocessors, support access, remote admin rights, and legal jurisdiction all matter. A US vendor with EU hosting may still trigger transfer questions. A UK entity selling into the EU may still need SCCs. A startup with a privacy policy copied from a template may still fail enterprise review.

If your company also sells across the bloc, tax and privacy obligations often collide in messy ways, and this is where a broader cross-border VAT and GDPR view becomes useful because customer data, invoicing data, and retention duties rarely sit in neat silos.

What changed after Brexit for EU, UK, and US data transfers?

Before Brexit, many founders treated the UK as just another GDPR country inside the same legal space. That shortcut no longer works. The UK kept a version of GDPR in domestic law, but transfer mechanics now require separate attention.

EU to UK: currently possible under an EU adequacy decision for the UK, subject to future review and political change.
UK to EU: generally easier in practice, but UK transfer rules and UK regulator expectations still apply to UK exporters.
EU to US: may be possible under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework for participating US organizations, or via SCCs plus a transfer assessment where needed.
UK to US: may rely on the UK extension to the Data Privacy Framework for eligible US organizations, or on the UK International Data Transfer Agreement, or the UK Addendum to the EU SCCs.
EU to UK to US, or UK to EU to US: multi-step vendor chains need mapping, not guessing.

This is where many founders make a category mistake. They ask, “Do we have SCCs?” when the real question is, “Which entity exports which data to which importer under which legal tool, and what onward transfers follow?” The answer may differ for HR data, product analytics, support tickets, and customer billing records.

What are SCCs, and when do you actually need them?

Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, are pre-approved contractual clauses published by the European Commission that parties can sign to support lawful transfers of personal data from the EEA to countries that do not benefit from an adequacy decision. They are not generic privacy terms. They are a specific transfer mechanism with fixed legal text, modular structure, and obligations for both exporter and importer.

For the UK, founders usually look at either the International Data Transfer Agreement, often shortened to IDTA, or the UK Addendum to the EU SCCs. If your startup has both EU and UK entities, or serves both regions through the same stack, you may need a coordinated document set rather than one universal contract.

Let’s break it down. You may need SCCs or the UK equivalent when:

You export personal data from the EU to a US provider that is not covered by a valid adequacy route for your use case
You transfer personal data from an EU entity to a group company outside the EEA
You rely on a vendor that permits support or admin access from third countries
You share candidate, employee, or contractor data across group companies outside the EU or UK
You use subprocessors in the US, India, or other third countries through your SaaS stack

You may not need SCCs where a valid adequacy decision covers the destination and the exact route, but you still need to verify scope, contracts, and onward transfers. Founders often stop too early and assume adequacy ends the story. It does not.

Which SCC module applies?

The modern EU SCCs are modular. That matters because startup vendor chains rarely fit one simple pattern.

Controller to Controller: one business decides purposes and means, and transfers to another business doing the same
Controller to Processor: your startup decides why and how personal data is processed, and the vendor processes on your behalf
Processor to Processor: your processor uses a subprocessor
Processor to Controller: less common but possible in certain business models

If your legal paperwork uses the wrong module, the contract may look polished but still fail scrutiny. That is why your vendor list should match your record of processing and your data flow map.

What is a Transfer Impact Assessment, and what should it cover?

A Transfer Impact Assessment, or TIA, is the documented review of whether the destination country, recipient, and actual transfer setup allow the data importer to comply with the transfer tool you chose, especially SCCs. After the Schrems II ruling, companies could no longer rely on SCCs as magic paper. They had to assess whether foreign laws or practices might undermine the protections promised in the contract.

That means a TIA is not a paragraph copied from a vendor trust page. It should examine the real transfer scenario. For startups, the right standard is not perfection. The right standard is honest, traceable reasoning.

What should a startup-grade TIA include?

Transfer description: what data moves, from which exporter, to which importer, for what purpose
Data categories: customer account data, support tickets, usage logs, marketing leads, employee files, special category data if any
Role mapping: controller, processor, subprocessor
Destination country analysis: local surveillance laws, disclosure powers, legal redress, practical risk level
Importer profile: who receives the data, whether they have a history of government requests, what security and access controls they use
Technical measures: encryption at rest, encryption in transit, key control, pseudonymization, access segregation, logging
Contractual measures: SCCs, UK Addendum, DPA terms, audit rights, breach notice, onward transfer restrictions
Organizational measures: access approval, role-based access, training, retention limits, escalation rules
Residual risk conclusion: your reasoned view on whether the transfer can proceed
Review trigger: when the TIA must be revisited, such as vendor change, subprocessors update, new data category, or legal shift

As a founder, I prefer systems that make compliance almost invisible inside everyday work. That view comes from building products where users should not need to become lawyers to do the right thing. A TIA should serve that same logic. It should be short enough to use, structured enough to update, and detailed enough to survive customer scrutiny.

How do EU-US and UK-US data transfer routes differ in real startup operations?

The legal route depends on the exporter, not just the customer location. That is where founders often get confused.

If your French entity sends customer data to a US CRM, EU transfer rules apply.
If your UK entity sends employee data to the same US CRM, UK transfer rules apply.
If your US parent receives support data from an Irish subsidiary, EU transfer rules apply to the export from Ireland.
If your UK support team accesses EU customer records hosted in Germany, you may create a restricted transfer depending on the structure and access model.

This is why internal group transfers deserve as much attention as vendor deals. Startups often spend weeks negotiating a DPA with a SaaS provider and ignore the fact that their own founder, sales lead, or contractor accesses the same records from another jurisdiction.

If your vendor contracts are messy, start with a proper data processing agreements review because transfer clauses, security schedules, and subprocessor terms need to fit together rather than live in separate legal universes.

Which sources should founders trust when assessing this topic?

Use official regulator materials first, then serious reporting for policy direction and market context. Good sources include:

European Commission materials on SCCs and adequacy decisions
European Data Protection Board guidance on supplementary measures and transfer tools
UK ICO guidance on international transfers, the IDTA, and the UK Addendum
US Department of Commerce materials on the Data Privacy Framework
Trusted reporting such as Reuters for cross-border policy and market shifts

For market direction, Reuters also reported on draft EU cloud rules that could curb access by non-European providers in strategic tenders. That matters because procurement teams may tighten vendor screening even before laws fully settle. See Reuters on EU cloud tender restrictions and data control.

How do you implement a sane transfer compliance process in a startup?

Here is the practical founder version. You do not need a 200-page policy set. You need a transfer map, a contract stack, a review rhythm, and one owner who actually knows what changed this month.

Phase 1: Audit and planning in weeks 1 to 2

Step 1. Audit your current state.

List every system that touches personal data: CRM, support desk, product analytics, payments, HR, recruitment, email, file storage, AI tools
Identify the legal entity that exports data in each workflow
Record where each vendor is established, where data is hosted, and where support access happens
Check whether each vendor relies on adequacy, SCCs, UK Addendum, IDTA, or another route
Flag sensitive categories such as health data, children’s data, or employee records

Step 2. Define your transfer strategy.

Decide whether to reduce risky vendors or keep them with stronger controls
Choose a standard TIA template for the company
Set review triggers for legal changes, vendor changes, and new subprocessors
Assign one internal owner, even if external counsel supports the work

Step 3. Build internal buy-in. Founders hate this part, but sales, product, HR, and engineering all create transfer risk. One team cannot fix what four teams casually break.

Phase 2: Foundation building in weeks 3 to 6

Step 4. Fix the contract stack.

Get signed SCCs or the UK transfer document where needed
Check annexes carefully: data categories, technical measures, subprocessors, contact details
Make sure your DPA, privacy notice, and internal records match the transfer reality
Review onward transfer rights and objection windows for subprocessors

Step 5. Put technical safeguards in place.

Turn on encryption in transit and at rest
Reduce admin access by default
Use least-privilege access for support teams
Pseudonymize where full identity is not needed
Separate production data from test environments

Step 6. Update public-facing legal pages. Many startups claim one thing in the privacy notice and do another in the backend. That mismatch is a trust killer. A clean set of terms of service and privacy policy templates helps you bring public statements closer to actual processing reality.

Phase 3: Testing and scaling in weeks 7 to 12

Step 7. Run transfer checks on real workflows.

New customer signs up from Germany
UK sales rep exports lead data into a US CRM
US support contractor accesses an EU support ticket
Finance team stores invoice records with customer details
Marketing team syncs newsletter subscribers to a US email tool

Step 8. Build a monthly review loop. Vendors change subprocessors, legal routes evolve, teams adopt random tools, and your original paperwork goes stale fast. Compliance that is not reviewed becomes fiction.

Marketing is often the leakiest area because tools multiply fast and consent logic gets messy. If that sounds familiar, review your wider GDPR for marketers setup as part of the same project.

What are the best practices that actually work in 2026?

1. Map access, not just storage

What it is: document who can access data, from where, and under which permissions.

Why it works: server location alone does not answer transfer questions. Access rights often create the real cross-border issue.

List all admin and support roles
Record country of access for each role
Restrict access where not strictly needed

Common pitfall: assuming EU hosting means no transfer risk.

How to avoid it: review support, security, and subcontractor access paths every quarter.

Metrics to track: number of users with third-country access, number of unrestricted admin accounts, time to remove old access.

2. Keep one vendor evidence file per high-risk tool

What it is: a single folder or record containing the DPA, SCCs or UK transfer tool, TIA, subprocessor list, security summary, and review date.

Why it works: enterprise buyers and regulators want traceability. Founders need speed. A single evidence file gives both.

Prioritize CRM, support, analytics, payroll, and AI vendors
Create a standard evidence checklist
Assign an owner and review date

Common pitfall: storing contracts across email threads, procurement tools, and founder laptops.

How to avoid it: one record, one owner, one renewal trigger.

Metrics to track: percentage of high-risk vendors with complete files, percentage reviewed in last 12 months, percentage with signed transfer tool.

3. Reduce data before you protect data

What it is: stop sending full personal data where partial data or pseudonymized data is enough.

Why it works: the smallest lawful transfer is easier to justify, secure, and explain.

Review each tool’s actual purpose
Remove unnecessary fields from syncs and exports
Shorten retention periods for stale data

Common pitfall: pushing the full customer profile into every tool because the integration allows it.

How to avoid it: define approved field-level transfers for each workflow.

Metrics to track: average fields transferred per tool, retention period by category, number of systems holding customer identity data.

4. Treat cookie and analytics setup as transfer work too

What it is: include web analytics, ad pixels, session tools, and consent banners in your cross-border review.

Why it works: many founders focus on HR or customer databases and forget that the public website sends personal data too.

Inventory all scripts on the site
Check vendor location, transfer tool, and retention settings
Match consent logic to actual data flows

Common pitfall: installing marketing scripts first and fixing consent later.

How to avoid it: review your cookie consent setup as part of transfer mapping, not as a separate website chore.

Metrics to track: number of scripts firing before consent, number of non-essential third-country vendors on the site, analytics retention period.

What mistakes do founders make most often?

Mistake 1: Treating SCCs as magic paper

Why founders make it: contracts feel concrete, and technical review feels annoying.

The impact: weak legal position, poor procurement answers, and exposed transfer routes.

Check whether the importer can really comply with the clauses
Add a TIA for the real transfer path
Review technical and organizational safeguards

If you already did this: revisit top vendors first, update annexes, and create TIAs for high-risk routes.

Mistake 2: Copying vendor claims without checking subprocessors

Why founders make it: trust pages look polished and founders are busy.

The impact: hidden onward transfers, weak notice to customers, and mismatched records.

Review subprocessor lists
Check notice periods and objection rights
Update internal records when vendors add countries or providers

Mistake 3: Forgetting internal transfers

Why founders make it: they focus on external vendors and ignore their own distributed team.

The impact: invisible remote access risk, sloppy role mapping, and bad answers during diligence.

Map founder, employee, and contractor access by country
Separate entity roles clearly
Document group transfer routes

Mistake 4: Publishing a privacy policy that does not match reality

Why founders make it: they ship legal pages once and never revisit them.

The impact: credibility loss, customer complaints, and a weak position in enterprise deals.

Review the policy against actual vendor and transfer maps
Update transfer sections after material changes
Make sure retention, rights, and contact details are current

Which metrics should you track?

You do not need vanity dashboards. You need a small set of numbers that expose transfer chaos quickly.

Foundational metrics

Number of vendors processing personal data
Percentage of vendors with signed DPA
Percentage of relevant vendors with signed SCCs, UK Addendum, or IDTA
Percentage of high-risk vendors with current TIA
Number of countries from which internal users can access production data
Average time to review a new vendor before purchase

Advanced metrics after three months

Percentage of transfers covered by documented lawful route
Number of tools removed after transfer review
Percentage of website scripts mapped to consent and transfer records
Average retention period by data category
Number of customer or buyer questionnaires answered without escalation

What should your dashboard include?

Live list of vendors and transfer countries
Status of each transfer document
Next review date
High-risk flags for sensitive data or broad access
Open legal or technical remediation items

How should startups handle this at different stages?

Pre-seed and seed stage

Your reality: tiny team, fast tooling decisions, little legal budget.

Use fewer vendors, not more
Prioritize tools with clear transfer terms and transparent subprocessors
Create a simple transfer map from day one

Prioritize: CRM, website, email, support, analytics, payment tools.

Wait on: giant policy libraries nobody will maintain.

Success looks like: every major vendor documented, legal pages updated, enterprise questionnaires answered without panic.

Series A stage

Your reality: more customers, bigger team, buyer diligence starts getting serious.

Standardize TIAs and vendor review
Separate entity roles and internal transfer routes
Assign one compliance owner with authority

Prioritize: procurement-ready evidence files and repeatable review.

Wait on: over-lawyering low-risk tools that touch almost no personal data.

Success looks like: sales, legal, and product teams give consistent answers to customers and investors.

Series B and beyond

Your reality: multiple entities, more countries, bigger procurement exposure, more M&A or enterprise scrutiny.

Move from scattered spreadsheets to a managed records system
Review group transfers and access rights in detail
Link transfer work with security, procurement, and product release review

Prioritize: governance that still works at speed.

Wait on: nothing that affects payroll, HR, health, finance, or customer support data.

Success looks like: fast diligence responses, lower vendor sprawl, and fewer emergency legal fixes.

What does a real-world startup example look like?

Imagine a Dutch SaaS startup with a UK sales entity and US-based customer support contractor. It uses a US CRM, an EU-hosted product database, a US email platform, and a payroll tool with UK and US subprocessors. The founder thinks the setup is safe because the product database sits in Frankfurt. That is incomplete.

The Dutch entity exports lead and customer data to the US CRM
The UK entity exports employee and prospect data under UK rules
The US support contractor accesses tickets containing EU customer data
The email platform receives subscriber data from both EU and UK forms

A sane fix would include: vendor mapping, role mapping, SCCs and UK transfer terms where needed, TIAs for high-risk vendors, limited support access, data minimization in CRM syncs, and updated public notices. Not glamorous. Very sellable.

This is one place where my own founder bias is strong. I do not admire performative compliance. I admire compliance that survives contact with reality. If a process cannot be maintained by a busy startup team, it will decay. If it decays, it was theatre, not control.

What should you do in the next four weeks?

Week 1: Research and alignment

List all tools that process personal data
Mark exporter entity, importer, and country
Choose an internal owner
Review current privacy notice and buyer questionnaire answers

Week 2: Planning and gap review

Identify missing DPAs, SCCs, UK Addenda, or IDTAs
Rank vendors by transfer risk
Create a TIA template
Set a review calendar

Week 3: Fix the highest-risk routes

Start with CRM, support, payroll, and marketing tools
Restrict unnecessary access
Reduce exported fields and retention where possible
Update records and annexes

Week 4 and after: Build repeatable control

Review new tools before purchase
Require transfer review in procurement
Revisit TIAs after vendor or legal changes
Train teams that create transfers without realizing it

Glossary of the terms founders confuse most often

Adequacy decision: a formal finding that a country offers a level of data protection considered sufficiently equivalent for transfer purposes.

SCCs: Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission for restricted transfers of personal data.

UK Addendum: the UK document used with EU SCCs to cover UK-restricted transfers.

IDTA: International Data Transfer Agreement, the UK standalone transfer agreement.

TIA: Transfer Impact Assessment, the documented review of whether the transfer setup and destination permit the chosen transfer tool to work in reality.

Controller: the party deciding why and how personal data is processed.

Processor: the party processing personal data on behalf of a controller.

Subprocessor: a processor appointed by another processor to handle personal data for part of the service.

Key takeaways

Post-Brexit data transfer work is no longer one-regime paperwork. EU and UK export routes need separate attention.
SCCs are useful, but not magical. They need correct modules, good annexes, and a real TIA where required.
Data location is only part of the story. Access rights, support routes, subprocessors, and foreign disclosure laws matter too.
Startups can manage this without a giant legal team. What they need is disciplined mapping, vendor evidence files, and monthly review.
The commercial upside is real. Clean transfer documentation speeds enterprise deals, reduces diligence friction, and makes your company easier to trust.

Next steps. If your startup has customers, leads, employees, or contractors across the EU, UK, and US, assume you already have a transfer problem to map, not a future problem to postpone. Founders who treat privacy as infrastructure, not decoration, move faster when real buyers start asking hard questions.

FAQ

How should founders handle a vendor that says data is hosted in the EU but support staff sit in the US?

EU hosting alone does not remove transfer risk if US-based staff can access personal data. Review remote access paths, admin permissions, and subcontractor locations, then document whether SCCs, the UK Addendum, or another lawful mechanism is needed for that real access model.

When is the UK Addendum better than using a separate IDTA?

The UK Addendum is often simpler when your company already uses EU SCCs and wants one coordinated contract set for mixed EU-UK operations. The IDTA can suit UK-only transfer arrangements better. Choose the approach that reduces duplication and keeps annexes aligned across entities.

What evidence do enterprise buyers usually ask for during transfer due diligence?

Most buyers want more than signed clauses. They usually ask for vendor lists, subprocessors, transfer maps, TIAs, security measures, and proof that privacy notices match reality. If your business is scaling across borders, the European Startup Playbook gives useful operational context.

Can startups rely on the EU-US or UK-US Data Privacy Framework alone?

Sometimes, but only if the US recipient is properly certified for the relevant framework route and your exact transfer fits that scope. You should still verify onward transfers, service configuration, and whether internal access or subprocessors create extra exposure outside the certified arrangement.

What makes a transfer impact assessment credible instead of performative?

A credible TIA reflects the exact workflow, categories of personal data, recipient role, destination-country risk, and real safeguards in place. It should explain why the transfer can proceed and when it will be reviewed again. The European Commission’s SCC Q&A overview is a strong reference point.

Do internal team members in other countries create restricted transfers too?

Yes, they can. A founder, contractor, or support agent accessing production data from another jurisdiction may create the same transfer issue founders usually associate only with external vendors. Map internal access by entity, country, and role, then align contracts and permissions accordingly.

How often should a startup review international data transfer compliance?

Review it whenever a vendor adds subprocessors, a new entity starts exporting data, a team adopts new tools, or laws materially change. As a baseline, a monthly lightweight review and a deeper quarterly vendor check usually works better than an annual legal clean-up.

What are the most overlooked high-risk tools in EU-UK-US data flows?

Marketing automation, support chat, AI assistants, payroll systems, and recruitment tools are often missed because teams deploy them quickly. These tools frequently involve sensitive identifiers, hidden subprocessors, or broad support access, making them high priority for SCC reviews and transfer assessments.

Should startups localize all data in Europe to avoid post-Brexit compliance problems?

Not necessarily. Full localization may reduce some exposure, but it does not solve access, control, or foreign legal jurisdiction issues by itself. A better approach is to minimize transferred data, tighten permissions, choose transparent vendors, and document the lawful transfer route clearly.

What is the fastest practical way to clean up a messy transfer setup?

Start with your top five highest-risk systems: CRM, support, payroll, analytics, and email. For each one, confirm exporter and importer entities, legal mechanism, subprocessor chain, and access rights. Then fix missing paperwork, reduce unnecessary fields, and create one evidence file per vendor.

Violetta Bonenkamp

Violetta Bonenkamp, also known as Mean CEO, is a female entrepreneur and an experienced startup founder, bootstrapping her startups. She has an impressive educational background including an MBA and four other higher education degrees. She has over 20 years of work experience across multiple countries, including 10 years as a solopreneur and serial entrepreneur. Throughout her startup experience she has applied for multiple startup grants at the EU level, in the Netherlands and Malta, and her startups received quite a few of those. She’s been living, studying and working in many countries around the globe and her extensive multicultural experience has influenced her immensely. Constantly learning new things, like AI, SEO, zero code, code, etc. and scaling her businesses through smart systems.

Post-Brexit Compliance: Moving Data Between the EU, UK, and US. Understanding SCCs (Standard Contractual Clauses) and proper assessments.21 | Ultimate Guide For Startups | 2026 EDITION