Cited by 9Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AILegal and Labor Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Automated individual decision-making and profiling [on Case C-634/21—SCHUFA (Scoring)]

Open access
Silveira, Alessandra·2023·UNIO – EU Law Journal

Abstract

Automated decision-making and profiling are finally being considered before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Article 22 GDPR states that “the data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her” – but its provisions raise many doubts to the legal doctrine – and to the referring court in the SCHUFA case. The problem with this case law lies in the opacity of inferences or predictions resulting from data analysis, particularly by AI systems – inferences whose application to everyday situations determines how each of us, as personal data subjects, are perceived and evaluated by others. The CJEU has the opportunity to assess the existence of legal remedies to challenge operations which result in automated inferences that are not reasonably justified. However, the effectiveness of the application of the GDPR to inferred data faces several obstacles. This has to do with fact that the GDPR was designed for data provided directly by the data subject – and not for data inferred by digital technologies such as AI systems. This is the difficulty behind the Advocate General’s Opinion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21814/unio.8.2.4842

Cites

0 references resolved

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Silveira, A.
Affiliations
University of Minho (PT)
Corresponding author
Silveira, Alessandra
Venue
UNIO – EU Law Journal
Published
2023-04-30
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
74-85
ISSN
2183-3435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4380356888
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
14.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Unio - EU Law Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
Keywords
automated decision-making, profiling, GDPR Article 22, Court of Justice of the European Union, artificial intelligence systems, legal remedies, personal data protection, Advocate General opinion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review