Tell me why!

When, to coin the Little Britain phrase, the “computer says no”, what information are individuals entitled to know? Handley Gill’s specialist data protection and responsible AI consultants summarise the ruling in C‑203/22 CK v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (commonly referred to as the Dun & Bradstreet case) determining how to comply with the obligation to provide meaningful information on automated decision-making.

Nicola Cain27 February 2025Data Protection, Personal Data, GDPR, General Data Protection Regulation, EU GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION, UK GDPR, Algorithmic Decision Making, Automated Decision Making, Article 22 GDPR, Article 22 UK GDPR, Artificial Intelligence, AI, AI Regulation, Article 13(2)(f) GDPR, Article 13(2)(f) UK GDPR, Article 14(2)(g) GDPR, Article 14(2)(g) UK GDPR, Article 15(1)(h) GDPR, Article 15(1)(h) UK GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 13 UK GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 14 UK GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 15 UK GDPR, Article 13(2) GDPR, Article 13(2) UK GDPR, Article 14(2) GDPR, Article 14(2) UK GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR, Article 15(1) UK GDPR, Confidential Information, Trade Secrets, Artificial Intelligence Regulation, AI Governance, Artificial Intelligence Governance, AI Transparency, Artificial Intelligence Transparency, Algorithmic Transparency, Ethical AI, AI Safeguards, AI Guardrails, Machine Learning, Article 29 Working Party, European Data Protection Board, EDPB, Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679, C-203/22, Privacy Notice, Data Subject Rights, DATA SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST, DSAR, SAR, SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST, ICO guidance on automated decision-making and profiling, Information Commissioner's guidance on automated decision-making and profilingComment

Handley Gill Limited