In an article on his personal blog, data protection specialist Jon Baines discusses an important judgment on preliminary issues in the Pacini & Geyer v Dow Jones data protection claim. Baines notes this is likely "the first time in a data protection claim that a court has been required to determine the meaning of personal data as a preliminary issue in an accuracy claim." Furthermore, Baines writes that it is not clear that the repetition rule seeking to avoid a defamatory loophole should carry over to data protection claims based on inaccurate data, as these are not limited to the time of the processing (in this case publication) but because they have become misleading or out of date.
According to Baines, this is a complicated read even for him, so what that says for the rest of us is anyone's guess. Despite this, it could very well end up being a significant ruling, so take note.
What is this page?
You are reading a summary article on the Privacy Newsfeed, a free resource for DPOs and other professionals with privacy or data protection responsibilities helping them stay informed of industry news all in one place. The information here is a brief snippet relating to a single piece of original content or several articles about a common topic or thread. The main contributor is listed in the top left-hand corner, just beneath the article title.
The Privacy Newsfeed monitors over 300 global publications, of which more than 5,750 summary articles have been posted to the online archive dating back to the beginning of 2020. A weekly roundup is available by email every Friday.
