Should we care about GDPR Article 22?: CIPIL Evening Seminar

Speaker: Tim Pitt-Payne KC, 11 Kings Bench Walk

Biography: Timothy Pitt-Payne KC is a leading information law silk based at 11KBW where he has practiced since 1990. He was appointed QC/KC in 2010. His information law practice involves both litigation and advisory work in data protection, freedom of information, access to environmental information, RIPA, human rights issues, privacy, and breach of confidence. His clients have included commercial organisations, the Information Commissioner, numerous regulators, NHS bodies, local authorities, Universities, and private individuals. He has extensive advocacy experience in information law, at all levels from the First-tier Tribunal to the Supreme Court. In addition to information law, he is also active in both public law and employment law.

Abstract: Article 22 of the UK GDPR prohibits certain forms of decision-making based solely on automated processing of personal data. This presentation considers the significance, scope, meaning and justification of Article 22 (as recently amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025). It argues that the provision should remain as part of the UK GDPR, although its scope may require modification. The provision is an outlier within the UK GDPR, in that it is focused specifically on decision-making, rather than on the full range of ways in which personal data can be processed. It applies to decision-makers in both the public and private sector. Much of the debate about the implications of automated decision-making has been focused on decision-making by judges or by public authorities; Article 22 is much wider in scope, with extensive impact on the private sector. I address some of the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 22. For instance, what minimum level of human involvement is required by Article 22? To what extent are any interpretative difficulties resolved by the recent amendments? In relation to the justification for Article 22, I assess possible arguments based on transparency, bias, responsiveness to individual circumstances, and risks of error. I argue that the most convincing justification is based on non-consequentialist arguments broadly relating to human dignity, founded on claims about inherent differences between human and machine capabilities.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars