Source assessmentSupporting
The Information Commissioner v Clearview AI Incorporated
facial recognition data protection jurisdictionRegulatory/legal
Assessment outcome
total 2/4 (actionability 0 + authority 2); currency unscored, so pro-rated to 3.0/6
Total2/6
Actionability0/2
Authority2/2
Currency—
Authorship & scope
Attribution (G4 evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuer authority (evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.
Eligibility gates
G1 · Retrievablepass
Passed in screening.
G2 · AI nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G3 · Governance nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G4 · Attributablepass
Passed in screening.
G5 · In forcepass
Passed in screening.
Scored criteria
Actionability
0/2No rationale recorded.
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 17 October 2023 was materially in error of law. It is SET ASIDE
Authority
2/2No rationale recorded.
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER Between: The Information Commissioner Appellant - v - Clearview AI Incorporated Respondent
Currency
—No rationale recorded.
Classification
Coverage topicfacial recognition data protection jurisdiction
PerspectiveRegulatory/legal
Lifecycle stage2 Collect & process data
Layerboth
GranularityNot recorded