Clearview AI Legal Troubles Highlight Facial Recognition Backlash in Europe
Europeans increasingly view facial recognition systems like Clearview's as an unacceptable form of surveillance. Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Image.
Key Takeaways
- Clearview AI has been fined €30.5 million ($33.7 million) by the Dutch Data Protection Authority.
- Multiple European regulators have ruled that Clearview illegally harvested photos to build its facial recognition software.
- Ongoing legal challenges in the EU and UK highlight rising public concern about the technology.
Among developers of facial recognition software, none are more controversial than Clearview–an American AI startup that has attracted numerous lawsuits and regulatory penalties over its illegal data collection.
In the latest instance, the firm has been fined 30.5 million euros ($33.7 million) by the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA). But whether the regulator will be able to enforce the penalty against a company that has shown a blatant disregard for European privacy law remains to be seen.
Clearview’s Illegal Data Collection
Before their Dutch counterpart made its move, data protection authorities in France, Italy, Greece and the UK had already issued similar fines and enforcement notices against Clearview.
In each instance, regulators found that Clearview failed to obtain consent before collecting personal data, which included photos scraped from social media profiles. (According to the company’s website, Clearview’s database contains 30 billion images that feed into an AI “face search” platform used by law enforcement agencies.)
Yet, despite repeated warnings from regulators, Clearview has refused to remove European citizens’ biometric data from its database.
“Such a company cannot continue to violate the rights of Europeans and get away with it,” stated Dutch DPA chairman Aleid Wolfsen. “Certainly not in this serious manner and on this massive scale.”
European Regulatory Enforcement
To date, European regulators have struggled to take action against Clearview because the company only operates out of the US and is shielded from liability. However, the Dutch DPA said it is investigating whether the company’s directors can be held personally responsible for the violations.
Of all the European regulatory actions against Clearview, the latest is the most forceful, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle that will test the limits of EU privacy law.
The move comes amid a growing EU backlash against facial recognition technology, which is now regulated under the bloc’s AI Act.
Meanwhile, the UK government has taken a different stance, with Prime Minister Kier Starmer recently calling for more police departments to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, legal opposition is mounting.
UK Legal Challenges
The government’s plans to expand the use of facial recognition are threatened by a legal challenge filed by Londoner Shaun Thompson against the Metropolitan police.
After he was misidentified by the force’s facial monitoring system and wrongfully threatened with arrest, Thompson joined forces with the advocacy group Big Brother Watch to file for a judicial review of the technology.
In another case, a teenage girl is suing the software developer Facewatch and retailer Home Bargains after she claims she was misidentified as a shoplifter.
“I have never stolen in my life and so I was confused, upset and humiliated to be labeled as a criminal in front of a whole shop of people,” she said in a statement . “I think it is wrong and dystopian to treat every shopper like a potential criminal who needs to have their face scanned. Shops should be banned from using this technology.”
Facial Recognition an “Orwellian” Form of Surveillance
Resistance to facial recognition reflects widespread anxieties about AI surveillance and its threat to individual privacy.
Commenting on the UK legal challenges, Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo said they represent a “landmark step” toward protecting the public from “Orwellian” live facial recognition. But critics of the technology aren’t only concerned about its use in public spaces.
Employers Criticized for Biometric Monitoring
After Samsung announced plans to trial a remote employee monitoring system, labor unions condemned the company for pursuing “excessive” surveillance.
In Europe, the proposed software could also fall foul of data protection regulations that prohibit biometric monitoring without sufficient legal basis.
When cases have come up for review, data protection authorities have often deemed the technology’s use by employers illegal.
In the UK, for example, in February, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ordered Serco Leisure to stop using facial recognition and fingerprint scanning to monitor staff attendance.
Commenting on the case, Information Commissioner John Edwards said Serco’s use of the technology was “neither fair nor proportionate under data protection law” and failed to respect employee’s privacy.
Samsung Display’s New Facial Recognition Trial Ignites Debate Over Employee Privacy
Uber Hit with €290 Million Fine for Sending European Driver Data to US
