Austrian privacy group noyb has filed a criminal complaint against Clearview artificial intelligence, alleging the US-based firm illegally collected photos and videos of European Union residents to build a massive facial recognition database. The group argues Clearview violated the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, and notes Austria’s criminal provisions for GDPR breaches could expose the company and its executives to personal liability, including potential jail time. Clearview, which markets primarily to law enforcement and says it has amassed more than 60 billion images globally, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clearview has already been found in breach of GDPR by regulators in France, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands for collecting and processing the data of millions of Europeans, resulting in nearly 100 million euros in cumulative fines. The company reached a US class-action settlement in March over data scraping practices. In the United Kingdom, Clearview is contesting a 7.5 million pound fine, arguing UK GDPR should not apply because its service is provided only to foreign law enforcement. An initial appeal was dismissed in October, with the court ruling the service falls under UK GDPR because it is used to identify individuals and analyse behaviour to predict and prevent illegal activities. The case is set to return to a lower tribunal, and Clearview may still seek permission to appeal the jurisdiction decision.
Noyb, led by Austrian lawyer and privacy advocate Max Schrems, says Clearview has disregarded EU decisions, lacks an EU establishment and has not paid imposed fines. Schrems warned that “Clearview AI amassed a global database of photos and biometric data, which makes it possible to identify people within seconds,” calling such power “extremely concerning” and at odds with a free society where surveillance is the exception. If prosecutors accept the Austrian complaint, it could set a precedent for criminal enforcement of GDPR violations and increase pressure on non-EU firms processing Europeans’ biometric data.
Beyond regulatory issues, the article highlights scrutiny of Clearview’s origins and political ties. Founder Hoan Ton‑That moved in alt-right circles in the mid-2010s, early marketing positioned the technology for immigrant identification and border security screening, and the company received early backing from Peter Thiel while governance roles were taken by figures linked to Republican politics. That context, privacy advocates argue, heightens concerns that mass biometric data collection combined with ideological affinities for surveillance could amplify social bias, discrimination or political targeting.
