| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Section 25(4), 26(a), 27 29, 30(1)(b), 32(1), 33(1)(a), 37, 40(1)(b) & 65 of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Regulation 4, 6, 14 of the Data Protection (General) Regulations 2021 |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Violation |
| Started: | 26 March 2024 |
| Decided: | 21 June 2024 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | KES.750,000/- |
| Parties: | Fatuma H Ali [Suing on behalf of a minor ADA] vs. Nova Pioneer Kenya Ltd |
| Case No.: | 502 of 2024 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
Nova Pioneer K Ltd was ordered to pay the respondent KES 750,000 for using a minor child's images in advertisements on multiple billboards and its website without obtaining the guardian's consent or complying with data protection safeguards concerning minors' personal data.
The Complainant filed a complaint against Nova Pioneer K Ltd (the “Respondent”) an educational institution, alleging that the Respondent had used the Respondent minor’s image for commercial purposes on its billboards and on its website without approval.
The Complainant alleged that she enrolled the minor at the Respondent's institution as a student. The Complainant later transferred the minor to a different school.
The Complainant later realised that the minor’s image had been used in the Respondent's website and multiple bilboards across the country to advertise the Respondent's school.
The Complainant alleged that she never gave permission for the minors photos to be used in this manner or at all.
The Complainant confirmed that the Billboards were pulled down and images on the website withdrawn once she raised a complaint with the Respondent. The Complainant asked to be compensated for the commercial use of the images.
The Respondent averred that the Respondent issued her consent to the images for use in the campaigns, but never substantiated their claim.
The ODPC found that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof as regards consent. The Respondent also failed to notify the Complainant of the intended use of the child's images as required.
The ODPC also found that the Respondent upheld the Complainant's right to erasure when it pulled down the Billboards and removed the images from its website.
The ODPC held that: