As well as arguing that they invaded his privacy, the Duke of Sussex also based his case on the photographers having mishandled his personal data under Europe's new GDPR law.
Potentially even more interesting than that is the way in which he won his battle — basing a legal case partly on a sweeping new European data law that is less than a year old. But pursuing photographers on the grounds that their business constitutes illegal data processing is a new strategy, and a use of GDPR that few would have predicted.Prince Harry and Meghan Markle win 'substantial' payout after paparazzi agency took aerial photos of their home that were so invasive they had to move out
According to Article 5 of the law , companies are obliged to handle data"fairly and in a transparent manner," and also to use it for"legitimate purposes." Legal experts have previously said that data protection legislation could give public figures a different way to beat the media in court.wrote an article about GDPR in media law
.kj_corcoran The UK Data Protection Act 2018 specifically exempts journalism from most of the GDPR , including the fairness principle in art. 5 you mentioned (unlike in The Netherlands, by the way). So, did the court find this wasn’t “journalism”? ukdatap
Assalamo Alaikum Ramadan Mubarak.please help me i am poor man.please please please.
I get half way through the article to find that the premise wasn’t ever tested in court which makes the excitement null. The royals didn’t “win” using the GDPR law at all. They won because the other side said uncle.
Except that GDPR is a European Union law and Brexit means leaving that ?
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »