Contents

1. Summary
   1. Facts
   2. Holding
2. Comment
3. Further resources
4. The Decision

Summary

Victor Manga Munya (the Complainant) filed a complaint against Liquid Intelligent Technologies (the Respondent) for the unlawful use of his image on the Respondent's website without his consent for commercial purposes. The Respondent claimed they had obtained consent through a model release form signed at an event in 2018. However, the ODPC determined that the Respondent failed to demonstrate they had obtained express consent because they could not identify the Complainant's signature on the model release form. The ODPC ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant Kshs. 500,000/= in compensation.

Facts

Victor Manga Munya (the Complainant) alleged that Liquid Intelligent Technologies (the Respondent) used his image on their website without his consent for marketing and commercial purposes.

The Complainant is a businessman who has held C-Level positions at leading global companies.

He alleged that the use of his image by the Respondent was a misrepresentation of facts and caused him reputational damage.

On discovering the alleged violation, the Complainant, through his advocates, wrote a demand letter to the Respondent. The Respondent pulled down the image from its website on 3 April 2024.

The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent's response to his demand letter and lodged a complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC).

The Respondent maintained that it used the Complainant’s image with his express consent. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was photographed on 24 April 2018. All the participants at the event, including the Complainant, signed model release forms, consenting to the use of their images.

The Respondent further contended that, on receipt of the demand letter, they immediately pulled down the Complainant’s image from its website. The Respondent considered the removal of the image an admission of liability even though it was done at the point of collection, processing and use.

The Respondent and the Complainant attempted to resolve the complaint via Alternative Dispute Resolution which was unsuccessful.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had not demonstrated commercial benefit gained from the use of his image. Further, the Respondent argued that allegations of damage suffered have not been substantiated, and therefore the Complainant's prayer for compensation is unfounded.

The ODPC found that the Respondent used the Complainant’s image for commercial purposes without the requisite consent as stipulated under the Act.

• The ODPC found that whilst several people signed the model release form on 24 April 2018 demonstrating consent, the Respondent could not ascertain whose signature belonged to the Complainant.