![[2024] UKUT 105 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Experian’s submissions
Experian’s submissions
Ms Proops emphasised that the EN’s criticisms of Experian’s existing LIAs were based on the proposition that they failed to take into account the harmful and intrusive nature of the processing. Accordingly, as the FTT had rejected the Information Commissioner’s case on these matters, it was evident that there was no basis for Requirement C6 and, in the circumstances, it could clearly be inferred that their conclusion on this aspect was included within the FTT’s indication at [181] that they did not find that there had been any other material contravention.
- Heading
- THE HON. MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS DBE
- Hearing dates: 6-8 February 2024
- The structure of the Upper Tribunal’s decision
- Abbreviations
- Glossary
- The nature of Experian’s data processing
- The Information Commissioner’s Enforcement Notice
- Experian’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
- The Information Commissioner’s case before the First-tier Tribunal
- The hearing before the First-tier Tribunal
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The First-tier Tribunal’s findings
- The First-tier Tribunal’s conclusions
- The Substituted Enforcement Notice
- The Information Commissioner’s grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- The legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s “error of law” jurisdiction
- Adequacy of reasons
- Enforcement notices and appeals against them
- Recitals to the GDPR
- Proportionality
- The European Data Protection Board: decisions and guidelines
- Summary of relevant aspects of the transparency principle in the GDPR
- The parties’ overarching submissions
- Ground 1
- Experian’s submissions
- Alleged overarching errors: discussion and conclusions
- Alleged failure to address Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
- Alleged failure to identify the applicable standard of transparency
- The nature of the processing
- Relevance of the reasonable expectations of data subjects
- Alleged specific errors: discussion and conclusions
- Use of hyperlinks to the CIP
- Suggestion that people do not care about what happens to their data
- How the FTT addressed the reasonable expectations of data subjects
- Concluding observations on Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Experian’s submissions
- Alleged overarching error: discussion and conclusion
- Alleged specific errors: discussion and conclusions
- Article 14(5)(a) and whether the data subject already “has” the information
- The route from the third party suppliers to the CIP
- Article 14(5)(b)
- Concluding observations on Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Experian’s submissions
- Discussion and conclusions
- Ground 5
- Experian’s submissions
- Discussion and conclusions
- Conclusions