French Data Analytics Law Won't Stop Analytics
The law's restrictions can easily be worked around, lawyers say.
June 07, 2019 at 06:20 PM
5 minute read
A French law that criminalises the use of data analytics to assess and predict patterns in judges' court decisions has baffled much of the legal world and the growing data analytics industry.
The new law, which was passed in March but stayed under the radar until this month, states that "the identity data of magistrates and members of the judiciary cannot be reused with the purpose or effect of evaluating, analysing, comparing or predicting their actual or alleged professional practices".
Those who violate the law face a sentence of up to five years in prison.
While such a law appears to impinge upon transparency and could have a huge impact on the burgeoning legal data analytics companies, the legislation was actually written as part of a move to create more transparency in the French judicial system – an effort to make all case law in France easily accessible to the general public.
"Article 33 was mainly dedicated to open data, for the population to have easy access to court decisions," said Frédéric Lalance, head of the Paris office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.
Known as Article 33 of the Justice Reform Act, the law was the result of a compromise between French lawmakers and pressure from judges, who emphasised the importance of privacy and feared that the profiling of judges based on their previous decisions could result in unwelcome consequences.
Lalance said they worried that personal information, including data showing patterns in their decisions, could be used against them – that the profiling of judges could result either in pressure on them or could encourage forum shopping.
Merav Griguer, a Paris-based partner with Bird & Bird, said the Union Syndicale des Magistrats, France's largest magistrates trade union, was "clearly against such open data", and its members expressed their concern to French lawmakers.
"They argued [such data collection and processing] is incompatible with independence and impartiality of judges," Griguer said.
In response, lawmakers included the provision to remove any references to judges' identities from publicly available court data.
|The law's limitations
The negative reaction to the law by attorneys and analytics companies has been overblown, some French lawyers say. Orrick's Lalance, for example, said it will not stop predictive analysis.
"You could have predictive analysis of a certain court or district or region, but it should not be based on the identity of persons rendering the decision," he said. "For example, the Paris Commercial Court has a special chamber dealing with bankruptcy. It is possible to proceed with predictive analysis based on all decisions rendered by that chamber but without selecting the name of a specific judge."
Bird & Bird's Griguer said the law fails to accomplish what it set out to do on either the privacy front or in preventing the use of data analytics.
"The law is not efficient, as it cannot technically prevent reidentification of judges and cannot prevent abuses by the reuse of such personal information," she said. "We already have GDPR, which is enough and more efficient to protect privacy."
The EU's General Data Protection Regulation seeks to guarantee digital privacy for all citizens of the European Union. Griguer said the publication of judges' personal information is subject to the GDPR and the abusive reuse of such information is already forbidden.
Under GDPR, for example, the reuse of data could violate the principle of "minimisation of data", which states that the collection and processing of data should be limited to what is necessary and adequate for the stated purpose.
Moreover, she said it is still easy to identify judges associated with a decision by combining other information, such as the location, nature and date of the trial.
"I think this law was unnecessary," she said,
And Griguer added that she does not think the law will kill off the market for legal data analytics, because the restrictions could be worked around relatively easily by tweaking algorithms.
Besides, she said, lawyers and law firms in France already have a font of information about judges.
Still, Griguer warned that data analytics firms will have to be careful when marketing their products to lawyers in France.
They cannot, for example, say, "we can show you how a judge will decide", she said.
|Related Stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Former Eric Adams' Deputy Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
- 2Canadian Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
- 3Lawyers Scramble to Secure Jobs Ahead of A&O Shearman's South Africa Closure
- 4Big Law's Biggest Stories (UK Edition) For 2024
- 5Luigi Mangione Indicted in Federal Court for Stalking, Murder and Firearms Offenses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250