- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Clearview AI – Court Ruling (Austria, 2025)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The Austrian court ruled that Clearview AI could not continue processing personal data without a legal basis. This is significant because it emphasizes the need for companies to have clear legal grounds for data processing. It also raises concerns about facial recognition technology and privacy.
What happened
Clearview AI was found to lack a legal basis for processing personal data.
Who was affected
Individuals whose images were processed by Clearview AI's facial recognition platform.
What the authority found
The court determined that Clearview AI's data processing activities were not justified under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny of facial recognition technologies. Companies using such technologies must ensure they comply with data protection laws.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.
Processing notes: authority corrected.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
On the 27 May 2021 noyb filed a complaint against Clearview AI, here the controller, with the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde – DSB). Clearview AI is a company which provides a facial recognition platform allowing users to compare photos of people with images of them found online. noyb brought forward that the controller could not rely on a legal basis for the processing of personal data of the represented data subject. More importantly, noyb requested for the data processing activities of the controller to be banned by the DPA under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. The DSB found that the controller had violated the GDPR (see DSB (Austria) - 2022-0.277.156). However, the DSB decided that the erasure of the personal data was an appropriate measure under Article 58 GDPR and that the additional prohibition therefore would not be necessary. noyb appealed the dismissal of the prohibition request to the Federal Administrative Court of Austria (Bundesverwaltungsgericht – BVwG). noyb’s argument noyb stated that the mere confirmation of a violation did not provide adequate legal protection from future unlawful data processing. noyb explained that even if the controller deleted the data subject’s personal information, it was likely that the controller would again process the data subject’s pictures as its business model is based on finding pictures of people online and processing them. Further, noyb argued that the data subject did have a subjective right to a prohibition on the processing as it was the only effective option available. The controller continuously scans the internet for pictures so if the data subject’s pictures were deleted it would only be a matter of time until they would be processed again. Additionally, a subjective right to an injunction was necessary as otherwise data subjects would have to bring a separate action for an injunction. This would put data subjects at a disadvantage particularly in regard to the cost of bringing such an action. noyb therefo
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (1)
Other cases involving Clearview AI in AT
Details
Ruling Date
28 January 2025
Authority
Datenschutzbehörde
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Clearview AI - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: