![[2024] UKUT 105 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Glossary
Glossary
The following definitions apply in this decision:
CAIS | Credit Account Information Sharing service is a closed user group database, forming part of the Experian CRA, used for sharing credit account information between those entitled to access that database |
ChannelView | A database principally used by Experian to link contact details with existing names and address profiles held in ConsumerView |
CIP | Consumer Information Portal is the website maintained by Experian providing transparency information to data subjects about EMS’s activities (https://www.experian.co.uk/cip) |
ConsumerView | A database which combines name and address information with actual, derived and modelled information on the demographic, socio-economic and behavioural characteristics of individuals and households |
Mosaic | A database which uses ConsumerView as well as third party datasets to build non-identifiable segments illustrating demographic and lifestyle attributes at postcode and household levels. If an attribute from Mosaic is appended to an individual in ConsumerView, that attribute is then considered to be personal data |
non-prospectable | Data acquired from the CRA business where Experian will not share the name and address data with their clients for the purposes of reaching prospective new customers or ‘prospects’ |
propensities | The likelihood of a characteristic in the form of a score added to the Experian database against individuals |
prospectable | Data not acquired from the CRA business where Experian will share the name and address data with their clients for the purposes of reaching prospective new customers or ‘prospects’ |
- 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