Abstract
The CJEU’s ruling in Dun & Bradstreet clarifies how the GDPR’s ‘right to an explanation’ should enable individuals to contest AI-based decision-making. It states that explanations need to be understandable while also respecting trade secrets and privacy concerns in a balanced manner. However, the Court excludes the disclosure of in-depth technical information and also introduces a burdensome balancing procedure. These requirements both strengthen and weaken the ability of individuals to independently assess impactful AI systems, leading to a pyrrhic victory for contestation.
Bibtex
Online publication{nokey,
title = {Dun & Bradstreet: A Pyrrhic Victory for the Contestation of AI under the GDPR},
author = {Metikoš, L.},
url = {https://www.law.kuleuven.be/ai-summer-school/blogpost/Blogposts/dun-bradstreet-a-pyrrhic-victory-for-the-contestation-of-ai-under-the-gdpr},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-03-25},
journal = {The Law, Ethics & Policy of AI Blog},
abstract = {The CJEU’s ruling in Dun & Bradstreet clarifies how the GDPR’s ‘right to an explanation’ should enable individuals to contest AI-based decision-making. It states that explanations need to be understandable while also respecting trade secrets and privacy concerns in a balanced manner. However, the Court excludes the disclosure of in-depth technical information and also introduces a burdensome balancing procedure. These requirements both strengthen and weaken the ability of individuals to independently assess impactful AI systems, leading to a pyrrhic victory for contestation.},
keywords = {ai, GDPR, Privacy},
}