Must read

The Practical impact of the Procurement Act 2023
– the challenges, the benefits and the legal lacunas
In the second of three articles for Local Government Lawyer on the Procurement
Act 2023 one year after it went live, Katherine Calder and Victoria Fletcher from
DAC Beachcroft consider some of its practical impact and implications, including
how to choose the right regime, how authorities are tackling the notice requirements,
considerations when making modifications, and setting and monitoring KPIs.
The Practical impact of the Procurement
Act 2023 – the challenges, the benefits
and the legal lacunas
Katherine Calder and Victoria Fletcher from DAC Beachcroft
consider some of its practical impact and implications,
including how to choose the right regime, how authorities
are tackling the notice requirements, considerations when
making modifications, and setting and monitoring KPIs.


Weekly mandatory food
waste collections
What are the new rules on food waste collections and why are
councils set to miss the March deadline? Ashfords’ energy
and resource management team explain.
Weekly mandatory food
waste collections
What are the new rules on food waste collections and why are
councils set to miss the March deadline? Ashfords’ energy
and resource management team explain.


The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On -
How procurement processes are evolving
Katherine Calder and Sarah Foster of DAC Beachcroft focus on
changes to procurement design at selection and tender stage in
three key areas of change that the Act introduced.
The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On -
How procurement processes are evolving
Katherine Calder and Sarah Foster of DAC Beachcroft focus on
changes to procurement design at selection and tender stage in
three key areas of change that the Act introduced.


Service charge recovery
and the Building Safety Act 2022
Zoe McGovern, Sian Gibbon and Caroline Frampton set out
what local authorities need to consider when it comes to
the Building Safety Act 2022 and service charge recovery.
Service charge recovery
and the Building Safety Act 2022
Zoe McGovern, Sian Gibbon and Caroline Frampton set out
what local authorities need to consider when it comes to
the Building Safety Act 2022 and service charge recovery.

Newsletter registration
Injunctions to restrain breaches of planning control
Who bears the burden?
Lawfulness and applications for a CLEUD
The OIA’s 2026 operating plan: What universities need to know
The Cardiff Airport subsidy control ruling
White Paper on SEN reforms: some lessons from the current Welsh SEN system
Greyhound racing and the separation of powers
CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369
The Hillsborough Law Bill: implications for public bodies
Dispensing with notice to father
Court of Protection case update April 2026
The new PD27A: a step change in Family Court bundle and document management
Déjà Vu – the implications of Zenobē Energy’s latest case for local government
The ERA – Benefits and Working Conditions
£150m Clean Maritime Grant Competition Opens – Critical Subsidy Control Steps for Applicants
Failure by Employers to Keep Holiday Records Becomes a Criminal Offence From April 2026
Why I Wanted to Explore Intensity of Review Across the UK and New Zealand
Asylum hotels, overcrowding and the HMO rules
Practical impact of the Procurement Act 2023 – the challenges, the benefits and the legal lacunas
Intentional homelessness and tenancies obtained by false statement
Defective but not fatal
Self-grants of planning permission, functional separation and demolition avoidance
The lawfulness of emailing licensing decision notices
Intervention: the Monitoring Officer’s view
The role of the backbench councillor
FOI and information held on computer systems
Sentencing guidelines for HSE offences and public bodies
Correcting mistakes in public decision making
The Supreme Court on termination of JCT contracts
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Housing delivery stalling - role of local authorities
Renters’ Rights Act 2025 - what it means for local authorities
DOLS and Under 16s: Insights from Medway Council v A Father
The Local Power Plan: Putting Clean Power in Communities’ Hands
The powers of exclusion panels
Removal from kinship care
When school discipline meets disability
Navigating the expansion of foster care
Personal welfare deputies – Lawson and Mottram strikes back?
No "clinical decision" exemption from best interests
Local Government Reorganisation 2026
Adoption vs long-term fostering
Evolution of the academy trust and maintained school landscape
Care leavers and redaction of records
“Unusual facts and procedural irregularities”
Planning appeals and costs awards
Refusal of planning applications against officers’ advice
Land value and the principle of reality
The latest Sizewell C JR
Impecuniosity and other issues in credit hire claims
Anti-Money Laundering: Key Issues for Local Government Legal and Governance Teams
Arts and Culture, Community and Regeneration: The Two New Streamlined Subsidy Routes
Disclosure to the DBS
The CAT and the New Lottery Subsidy Control challenge
Gender-questioning children under draft KCSIE 2026
Accelerating the planning appeals process: unintended consequences
The convergence of DRS, Simpler Recycling and EPR
Reserve below-threshold contracts for UK or local suppliers under the 2026 Order
CMO Principle and Financial Assistance Further Clarified in Latest CAT Judgment on Subsidy Control
Make Europe Build Again – The EU Industrial Accelerator Act
Affordable housing funding news & unlocking S106 units
The Social and Affordable Housing Programme 2026–2036: new guidance
Housing case alert - February 2026
Residential developments: new section 106 delivery roadmap
The Renters Rights Act and social landlords
Assured tenancies: written statements and information sheets
The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On - How procurement processes are evolving
Book review: “Reforming lessons”
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
The draft NPPF consultation: what’s new
Mobile phones, AI and schools
Transparency in FII cases
Court documents and AI
Next steps for the LGPS after the access and fairness consultation
What is an Officer?
The High Court on the EHRC’s “interim update”
Substituted decision notices and contempt of court
Social media guidance for members
2026 in construction: a look ahead
Track allocation in housing disrepair claims
Withdrawing applications for care orders
Appropriate professional boundaries for teachers
Children under 16 and deprivation of liberty
A Welsh white leopard?
Conversion to an ‘empty’ MAT
Local Government Reorganisation 2026
Must read
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
Fix it fast: How “Awaab’s Law” is forcing action in social housing
Housing management in practice: six challenges shaping the sector
Why AI must power the next wave of Social Housing delivery
Must read
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Sponsored articles
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Unlocking legal talent
ICO imposes £7.5m monetary penalty on facial recognition database company and orders UK data to be deleted
- Details
Clearview AI has been hit with a monetary penalty of £7,552,800 for using images of people in the UK and elsewhere collected from the web and social media to create a global online database that could be used for facial recognition, following an investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
The ICO also issued an enforcement notice against the company ordering it to stop obtaining and using the personal data of UK residents that is publicly available on the internet, and to delete the data of UK residents from its systems.
The company said the decision to impose any fine was “incorrect as a matter of law” as Clearview is not subject to the ICO's jurisdiction, and currently does no business in the United Kingdom.
The ICO found that Clearview AI Inc breached UK data protection laws by:
- failing to use the information of people in the UK in a way that was fair and transparent, given that individuals were not made aware or would not reasonably expect their personal data to be used in this way;
- failing to have a lawful reason for collecting people's information;
- failing to have a process in place to stop the data from being retained indefinitely;
- failing to meet the higher data protection standards required for biometric data (classed as 'special category data' under the GDPR and UK GDPR);
- asking for additional personal information, including photos, when asked by members of the public if they were on their database. This might have acted as a disincentive to individuals who wished to object to their data being collected and used.
The company provides a service that allows customers, including the police, to upload an image of a person to the company's app, which is then checked for a match against its database of over 20 billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including social media.
The app then provides a list of images that have similar characteristics to the photo provided by the customer, with a link to the websites from where those images came from.
Given the high number of UK internet and social media users, the database is likely to include a substantial amount of data from UK residents, which has been gathered without their knowledge, the ICO said.
Although the company no longer offers its services to UK organisations, the company has customers in other countries, so the company is still using the personal data of UK residents, the watchdog added.
John Edwards, UK Information Commissioner, said the company not only enables identification of people on its database "but effectively monitors their behaviour and offers it as a commercial service. That is unacceptable."
Mr Edwards added: "That is why we have acted to protect people in the UK by both fining the company and issuing an enforcement notice.
"People expect that their personal information will be respected, regardless of where in the world their data is being used. That is why global companies need international enforcement. Working with colleagues around the world helped us take this action and protect people from such intrusive activity.
However, Lee Wolosky, a Partner at law firm Jenner and Block and representing Clearview, said: “While we appreciate the ICO’s desire to reduce their monetary penalty on Clearview AI, we nevertheless stand by our position that the decision to impose any fine is incorrect as a matter of law. Clearview AI is not subject to the ICO's jurisdiction, and Clearview AI does no business in the UK at this time.”
Clearview’s CEO, Hoan Ton-That, said: “I grew up in Australia and have long viewed the UK as an important, majestic place—one about which I have the deepest respect. I am deeply disappointed that the UK Information Commissioner has misinterpreted my technology and intentions. I created the consequential facial recognition technology known the world over.
“My company and I have acted in the best interests of the UK and their people by assisting law enforcement in solving heinous crimes against children, seniors, and other victims of unscrupulous acts. It breaks my heart that Clearview AI has been unable to assist when receiving urgent requests from UK law enforcement agencies seeking to use this technology to investigate cases of severe sexual abuse of children in the UK."
He added: “We collect only public data from the open internet and comply with all standards of privacy and law. I am disheartened by the misinterpretation of Clearview AI’s technology to society. I would welcome the opportunity to engage in conversation with leaders and lawmakers so the true value of this technology which has proven so essential to law enforcement can continue to make communities safe.”
Adam Carey
Trainee Solicitor
Lawyer / Senior Lawyer
Poll









