Personal Data as Consideration
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEChoose format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEPersonal Data as Consideration
Publication date: 13.12.2023
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2023, 2/2023 (9), pp. 215 - 242
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.23.029.18649Authors
Personal Data as Consideration
This article argues that personal data may have a commercial value in the European legal systems, and as such it can function as a consideration and has a quid pro quo character. It claims that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) should not exclude that data concerning the data subject can be used as contractual consideration, especially in the world of the Internet. In particular, it cannot be excluded solely on the basis that the right to privacy is not transferable, a position taken thus far in the EDPB’s practice. This proposed new approach is supported by the fact that in some EU Member States the property aspects of the general right of personality have been recognized, a stance which may also apply to personal data, without the need to recognize a kind of data ownership or sui generis intellectual property right in the data. Thus, the theory of commercial aspects of personality rights can be linked to the commercial value of personal data. The quid pro quo function of personal data may also be recognized in line with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In fact, maintaining the interpretation of the EDPB – which denies the quid pro quo character of personal data from a fundamental rights perspective – means that the dangers of such data processing cannot be assessed. This affects cultural heritage in many aspects – from the sending of newsletters to selling merchandise products in museums. The EDPB’s guidelines, as soft law, have no direct impact on the case-law of the national courts, thus this also significantly increases the risk of a collision between the simultaneously available remedy regimes established by the GDPR.
2008. évi XLVII. törvény a fogyasztókkal szembeni tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlat tilalmáról [Act XLVII of 2008 on the Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices], Magyar Közlöny 2008/95.
2008. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről [Act No. V of 2013 on the Civil Code], Magyar Közlöny 2013/185.
Acquisti A., Taylor C.R., Wagman L., The Economics of Privacy, “Journal of Economic Literature” 2016, Vol. 54(2).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 299.
Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on Consent under Regulation 2016/679, 10 April 2018, WP259 rev.01.
Article 29 Working Party, Opinion 06/2014 on the Notion of Legitimate Interests of the Data Controller under Article 7 of Directive 95/46/ECWP217, 9 April 2014, WP217.
Baker S., Numerátorok, transl. by R. Komáromy, Geopen, Budapest 2009.
Banterle F., The Interface Between Data Protection and IP Law: The Case of Trade Secrets and the Database Sui Generis Right in Marketing Operations, and the Ownership of Raw Data in Big Data Analysis, in: M. Bakhoum et al. (eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law: Towards a Holistic Approach?, Springer, Berlin 2018.
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Calfiornia Civil Code [1798.100-1798.199.100].
Case C16/16 P, Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission, Opinion of Advocate General Bobek, 12 December 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:959.
Case C-98/80, Giuseppe Romano v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité, Judgment of 14 May 1981, ECR-01241.
Case C-270/12, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Judgment of 22 January 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:18.
Case C-300/21, UI v Österreichische Post AG, Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, 6 October 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:756.
Case C322/88, Salvatore Grimaldi v Fonds des maladies professionnelles, Judgment of 13 December 1989, ECR-04407.
Case C-9/56, Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, SpA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, Judgment of 13 June 1958, ECLI:EU:C:1958:7.
Case C-911/19, Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR), Opinion of Advocate General Bobek, 15 April 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:294.
Case T-187/06, Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Judgment of 19 November 2008, ECR II-03151.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391.
Chrobak L., Proprietary Rights in Digital Data? Normative Perspectives and Principles of Civil Law, in: M. Bakhoum et al. (eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law: Towards a Holistic Approach?, Springer, Berlin 2018.
Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: European agencies – The way forward, 11 March 2008, COM(2008) 135 final.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 115, 9.05.2008, p. 47.
Constitutional Court (Spain), Judgment of 26 March 2001, STC 81/2001. Council of State (France), Decision no. 434684, 19 June 2020.
Court of Appeal in Kraków (Poland), Judgment of 7 February 1995, I ACr 697/94. Curia of Hungary, Judgment of 6 October 2021, Kfv.II.37.243/2021/11.
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, OJ L 157, 15.06.2016.
Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules, OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7./
Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, OJ L 136, 22.05.2019, p. 1.
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, 27.03.1996, p. 20.
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ L 149, 11.06.2005, p. 22.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 595.
ECHR, Ernst August von Hannover v Germany, Application no. 53649/09, Judgment of 19 February 2015.
EDPB, Guidelines 05/2020 on Consent under Regulation 2016/679, 4 May 2020.
EDPB, Guidelines 2/2019 on the Processing of Personal Data under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the Context of the Provision of Online Services to Data Subjects, 8 October 2019.
European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment accompanying the document: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, 26 April 2018, SWD(2018) 139 final, p. 1.
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content, 9 December 2015, COM(2015) 634 final.
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, 26 April 2018, COM(2018) 238 final.
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act), 23 February 2022, COM(2022) 68 final.
European Commission, Questions and Answers – EU Negotiators Agree to Set Up New European Rules to Improve Fairness of Online Platforms’ Trading Practices, 14 February 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_19_1169 [accessed: 14.07.2023].
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Final report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, 10 May 2017, COM(2017) 229 final.
European Parliament, Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (COM(2018)0238 C8-0165/2018 2018/0112(COD)), 23 November 2018, ITRE_AD(2018)627047.
Federal Constitutional Court (Germany), Judgment of 15 December 1983, 1 BvR 209/83, 1 BvR 269/83, 1 BvR 362/83, 1 BvR 420/83, 1 BvR 440/83, 1 BvR 484/83 = BVerfGE 65, 1.
Federal Constitutional Court (Germany), Judgment of 22 August 2006, NJW 2006, 3409.
Federal Court of Justice (Germany), Judgment of 5 October 2006, BGHZ 169, 193.
Federal Court of Justice (Germany), Judgment of 1 December 1999, NJW 2000, 2195.
Federal Court of Justice (Germany), Judgment of 1 December 1999, NJW 2000, 2201.
Federal Court of Justice (Germany), Judgment of 14 February 1958, BGHZ 26, 349.
Federal Court of Justice (Germany), Judgment of 18 March 1959, NJW 1959, 1269.
Federal Court of Justice (Germany), Judgment of 26 October 2006, NJW 2007, 689.
Federal Patent Court (Germany), Judgment of 25 November 1997, GRUR 1998, 1021.
Fia T., Resisting IP Overexpansion: The Case of Trade Secret Protection of Non-Personal Data, “International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law” 2022, Vol. 53.
Götting H.-P., Die Vererblichkeit der vermögenswerten Bestandteile des Persönlichkeitsrechts – ein Meilenstein in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, “Neue Juristische Wochenschrift” 2001.
High Court of Kecskemét (Hungary), Decision no. 8.P.20.334/2017/17.
Higher Regional Court of Dresden (Germany), Judgment of 4 April 2000, NJW 2001, 615. Hofmann H.C.H., Agency Design in the European Union, “Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice” 2010.
Kerber W., A New (Intellectual) Property Right for Non-Personal Data? An Economic Analysis, “GRUR International” 2016, Vol. 11.
Kohler J., Das Autorrecht, Fischer, Jena 1880.
Kovács A.Gy., Tóth T., Forgács A., Effects of European Soft Law at National Administrative Courts, “Loyola University Chicago International Law Review” 2016, Vol. 14(1).
Kovács A.Gy., Tóth T., Forgács A., The Legal Effects of European Soft Law and Their Recognition at National Administrative Courts, “ELTE Law Journal” 2016, Vol. 2.
Lessig L., Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, New York 1999.
Malgieri G., “User-Provided Personal Content” in the EU: Digital Currency Between Data Protection and Intellectual Property, “International Review of Law, Computers & Technology” 2018, Vol. 32(1).
Menyhárd A., A magánélethez való jog a szólásés médiaszabadság tükrében [The Right to Privacy in the Context of Freedom of Expression and Media Freedom], in: Z. Csehi, A. Koltay, Z. Navratyil (eds.), A személyiség és a média a polgári és a büntetőjogban, Complex, Budapest 2014.
Noto La Diega G., Data as Digital Assets: The Case of Targeted Advertising, in: M. Bakhoum et al. (eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law: Towards a Holistic Approach? Springer, Berlin 2018.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR), OJ L 119, 4.05.2016, p. 1.
Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, OJ L 186, 11.07.2019, p. 57.
Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act), OJ L 152, 3.06.2022, p. 1.
Richter H., The Power Paradigm in Private Law, in: M. Bakhoum et al. (eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law: Towards a Holistic Approach?, Springer, Berlin 2018.
Sappa C., How Data Protection Fits with the Algorithmic Society via Two Intellectual Property Rights – A Comparative Analysis, “Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice” 2019, Vol. 14(5).
Sattler A., From Personality to Property? in: M. Bakhoum et al. (eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law: Towards a Holistic Approach? Springer, Berlin 2018.
Schneider G., European Intellectual Property and Data Protection in the Digital-Algorithmic Economy: A Role Reversal(?), “Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice” 2018, Vol. 13(3).
Schultz M., A személyiségi jogok vagyoni értéke és tárgyiasulása [Commercial Value and Manifestation of Personality Rights], ORAC, Budapest 2022.
Supreme Court (Austria), Judgment of 21 June 2010, SZ 2010/70.
Tari A., #yz Generációk online [#yz Generations Online], Tericum, Budapest 2015.
Tene O., Polonetsky J., Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, “North-western Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property” 2013, Vol. 11.
Titelman G.Y., Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings, Random House, New York 1996.
Trakman L., Walters R., Zeller B., Is Privacy and Personal Data Set to Become the New Intellectual Property?, “International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law” 2019, Vol. 50(8).
Trebes A., § 59 Frankreich, in: H.-P. Götting, C. Schertz, W. Seitz (eds.), Handbuch des Persönlichkeitsrechts, C.H. Beck, Munich 2019.
Ullrich H., Expansionist Intellectual Property Protection and Reductionist Competition Rules: A TRIPS Perspective, “Journal of International Economic Law” 2004, Vol. 7.
Ursic H., The Failure of Control Rights in the Big Data Era: Does a Holistic Approach Offer a Solution? in: M. Bakhoum et al. (eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law: Towards a Holistic Approach? Springer, Berlin 2018.
Vékás L., Über die Expertenvorlage eines neuen Zivilgesetzbuches für Ungarn, “Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht” 2009.
Verhoest K., van Thiel S., De Vadder S.F., Agencification in Public Administration, in: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2021, doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1466.
Wiebe A., Protection of Industrial Data: A New Property Right for the Digital Economy? “Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice” 2017, Vol. 12(1).
Information: Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2023, 2/2023 (9), pp. 215 - 242
Article type: Original article
Titles:
Personal Data as Consideration
Personal Data as Consideration
Department of Macroeconomics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Published at: 13.12.2023
Article status: Open
Licence: CC BY
Percentage share of authors:
Article corrections:
-Publication languages:
English