Facial recognition: 20 million euros penalty against Clearview AI

Following a formal notice which remained unaddressed, the CNIL imposed a penalty of 20 million euros and ordered Clearview AI to stop collecting and using data on individuals in France without a legal basis and to delete the data already collected.

As of May 2020, the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés, CNIL received complaints from individuals about Clearview AI's facial recognition software and opened an investigation. In May 2021, the association Privacy International also warned the CNIL about this practice.

On 26 November 2021, the Chair of the CNIL decided to give Clearview AI formal notice to cease the collection and use of data of persons on French territory in the absence of a legal basis to to facilitate the exercise of individuals' rights and to comply with their requests for erasure.  Clearview AI had two months to comply with the injunctions formulated in the formal notice and to justify them to the CNIL. However, it did not provide any response to this formal notice.

The Chair of the CNIL therefore decided to refer the matter to the restricted committee, which is in charge for issuing sanctions.

The Commission found:

  • Unlawful processing of personal data (breach of article 6 of the GDPR)
  • Individuals' rights not respected (articles 12, 15 and 17 of the GDPR)
  • Lack of cooperation with the CNIL (Article 31 of the RGPD)

On the basis of the information brought to its attention, the restricted committee decided to impose a maximum financial penalty of 20 million euros, according to article 83 of the GDPR.

Regarding the very serious risks to the fundamental rights of the data subjects resulting from the processing carried out by the company, the restricted committee decided to order Clearview AI to stop collecting and processing data of individuals residing in France without a legal basis and to delete the data of these persons that it has already collected, within a period of two months. The restricted committee added to this injunction a penalty of 100,000 euros per day of delay beyond these two months. (edpb.europa.eu/photo: freepik.com)

More information here

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Legal Professional Privilege in the Digital Age: Recent case law of the ECtHR and the core principles that should govern searches

Image
By Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer The protection of legal professional privilege is a fundamental pillar of the right to respect for private life and correspondence (Article 8 of the ECHR), as well as of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). In recent years, as the use of digital means in the practice of law has become firmly established, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered important judgments focusing mainly on the digital age, searches of law offices and the surveillance of communications between lawyer and client. Set out below is a selection of ECtHR case law on such matters: Seizure and retention of vast amounts of lawyers' digital data In Kırdök and Others v. Turkey (3 December 2019), the national authorities seized all the hard drives and digital files of a law office in the course of an investigation, without distinguishing between the documents relating to the case and the confidential files of other clients. The Court found a violat...
Read more

Questioning Suspects Without a Lawyer: Hungary and Czech Republic Infringed EU Law (CJEU)

Image
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations: By allowing, as a general rule, suspects or persons under reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence to be questioned without a lawyer if that lawyer does not attend within a certain period, Hungary and the Czech Republic have infringed EU law (Judgments of the CJEU in Cases C-660/24 | Commission v Hungary and C-681/24 | Commission v Czech Republic). The national legislation of those two Member States cannot be justified by the grounds exhaustively laid down in EU law that permit a temporary derogation from the right of access to a lawyer The directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings [1] provides that suspects and accused persons are to have the right of access to a lawyer in such time and in such a manner so as to allow the persons concerned to exercise their rights of defence practically and effectively. In the sets of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations brought against Hungary and ...
Read more

Motor vehicle liability insurance: EU law does not preclude the transfer of a claim for compensation held against an insurance company (CJEU)

Image
Motor vehicle liability insurance: EU law does not preclude the transfer of a claim for compensation held against an insurance company (Judgment of the Court of Justice of EU in Case C-277/25- Helpfind Funding and Others). In Poland, several people whose vehicles had been damaged in road traffic accidents received compensation from the insurance undertakings of the persons responsible for those accidents. They took the view that the sums that they had received did not fully remedy their material damage, and therefore assigned their compensation claims to companies specialising in debt recovery, in return for payment. [1] Those professionals then brought legal proceedings against the insurers concerned. The Polish court seised of those disputes referred the matter to the Court of Justice to enquire whether the EU Motor Insurance Directive [2] prevents such an assignment of the right to compensation.  The Court answers that question in the negative. It notes that the directive aims t...
Read more

Balancing Crime Control and Ne Bis In Idem: ECtHR Finds No Violation in Successive Proceedings

Image
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice – a right protected by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle. In its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal (applications nos. 48047/15 and 2276/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, by fifteen votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair bala...
Read more

Obligation for lawyers to appear in person before disciplinary bodies : Advisory Opinion by ECtHR

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has delivered its opinion in response to a request (no. P16-2026-002) for an advisory opinion made by the Constitutional Court of Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The request concerned the compatibility with Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention of the obligation for a lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings to appear in person at the hearing before the disciplinary body and, in the event of failure to do so, the resulting inability to be represented by counsel instead and to apply to the body in question to set aside an adverse decision entered in default (section 26 of the Law of 10 August 1991). It was made in the context of proceedings in which a former lawyer of the Luxembourg Bar had been disbarred for life by the Luxembourg disciplinary authorities. The Court clarified that the right to a fair hearing did not in principle preclude domestic legislation from...
Read more

Judges’ Freedom of Expression and the Limits of Disciplinary Power: The ECtHR Judgment in Savvas v. Greece

Image
The ECtHR ruled in favor of a Greek judge in a case involving disciplinary proceedings for improper conduct on and off duty ( Savvas v. Greece ). The judge had served extrajudicial notices ( ex-officio legal notices) on three senior colleagues via a court bailiff, requesting that they retract negative comments made against him during a promotion procedure. He was subsequently placed on a three-month suspension. Invoking Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, A. Savvas argued that he exercised his legal right to express his opinion in the extrajudicial notices, to defend himself against unfounded accusations, to protect his interests in the context of the promotion process, and to safeguard the public interest by ensuring a fair judicial promotion procedure. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR and awarded compensation for pecuniary damage: €5,211.15, non-pecuniary damage: €6,000, and costs and expenses: €1,000. In its judgme...
Read more