[2024] UKUT 105 (AAC)

There appeared to be a significant degree of overlap between the Information Commissioner’s submissions on Ground 1 and Ground 3. In this section of our decision we only summarise and address those matters that we have not already covered when we considered Ground 1. Mr Pitt-Payne submitted that the FTT had failed to address the Commissioner’s specific criticism that the most striking and/or surprising features of Experian’s processing were not covered in the first levels of the CIP that would be reached when a data subject navigated to the website. He said that the first layer of the CIP focused on explaining why Experian’s processing was beneficial, rather than on what the processing actually entailed. He contended that the CIP failed to reflect the approach identified in the Article 29 Working Party’s guidelines on transparency in terms of layering and giving prominence to information that was relevant to the reasonable expectations of data subjects. He said that it was incumbent on the FTT to resolve this issue as it was clearly raised by Requirement A1 of the EN and maintained during the hearing, including in the Commissioner’s written closing submissions.