Sophie Veld, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, also questions the guarantees afforded under the new deal. “The assurances seem to rely exclusively on political commitment, instead of legal acts,” she said in a statement.

Veld was skeptical of some of the proposed measures. “It’s highly implausible that an ombudsman will have sufficient powers to oversee the US intelligence services,” she said.

But other Safe Harbor watchers said they thought the new arrangement went far enough. William Long, a partner at law firm Sidley Austin in London, told Quartz that the new deal’s annual joint-review mechanism was an improvement on the old framework.

Georgios Petropoulos, a visiting fellow at economics think-tank Bruegel in Brussels, told Quartz that the coming months would be the real test of the new agreement, as European and US officials dig deep into the details of implementing the proposed measures. “Given the fundamental differences between the two sides, I didn’t expect more. It is a first step, but the real negotiation, the real discussion, will start right now,” he said.

Correction (Feb. 2, 7:30 EST): A previous version of this article stated that Safe Harbor was ruled invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union in September 2015. It was ruled invalid in October 2015.

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief

Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.