Cases
Liburuwen Lesanguru Kweri vs. Beehive Media Limited
Case Summary
The Complainant, Liburuwen Lesanguru Kweri, lodged a complaint against Beehive Media Limited (the Respondent), alleging the unauthorized use of his image in the Respondent's advertisements across various social media platforms. The Complainant asserted that he had not granted consent for his image to be used by the Respondent for commercial purposes. The Respondent acknowledged using the Complainant's image but contended that they obtained it from Shutterstock, a stock photography platform, with a valid license. The Respondent operated under the mistaken belief that Shutterstock or its contributors had already obtained consent from the Complainant. The Complainant argued that, regardless of the Respondent's source, the ultimate responsibility for obtaining consent for the use of his personal data (his image) lay with the Respondent as the data controller determining the purpose and means of processing.
Issues for Determination
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner identified the following key issues for determination:
- Whether the Respondent infringed the Complainant's right to privacy.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the remedies sought for the alleged breach.
Determination
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner made the following final determination:
The Respondent, Beehive Media Limited, is liable for infringing the Complainant's right to privacy and unlawfully processing his personal data.
The Respondent is ordered to pay a penalty of Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand (KShs. 100,000) to the Complainant.
The Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from processing the Complainant's image for advertising or any other purpose where consent has not been obtained.
The Respondent is ordered to delete all images of the Complainant from its records and database.
Analysis
The ODPC's analysis focused on the principles of consent and accountability under the Data Protection Act, 2019.
Firstly, the Commissioner established that an individual's image constitutes "personal data" under the Act. Therefore, its processing, including use in advertisements, requires a lawful basis, most commonly the explicit consent of the data subject.
Secondly, the ODPC highlighted that the burden of proof for obtaining consent lies with the Data Controller. Even though the Respondent acquired the image from Shutterstock with a license, the Commissioner emphasized that this did not absolve Beehive Media Limited (as the Data Controller determining the use of the image) of its responsibility to ensure that the necessary consent from the individual (Complainant) was obtained for their specific use of the image. The Respondent's reliance on Shutterstock's terms of service was deemed insufficient, as it did not demonstrate direct consent from the Complainant for the Respondent's commercial advertising. The ODPC affirmed that a Data Controller cannot delegate their obligation to obtain consent to a third party like a stock image provider without ensuring that the third party genuinely obtained that consent for the specific purpose the Data Controller intends.
Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the Respondent's failure to obtain express consent from the Complainant for using his image in advertisements constituted a clear violation of the Complainant's right to privacy and the principles of lawful data processing under the Act. This led to the imposition of a monetary penalty and orders for cessation of processing and deletion of the image, underscoring the strict liability of data controllers for ensuring data privacy compliance.