The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has delivered a clarification that should resonate with anyone tracking the porous boundaries between information processing, commercial enterprise, and what used to be called journalism. In a recent decision concerning a Swedish entity operating a searchable database of criminal records, the EU’s highest court determined that merely making public data available for a fee does not qualify for the GDPR’s journalistic activities exemption.
The case, C-570/22, involved a company that meticulously compiled and offered access to information drawn from public Swedish criminal conviction registers. In an attempt to sidestep certain obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), particularly those related to the right to rectification, the company argued its operations constituted "journalistic activities." This exemption, outlined in Article 85 of the GDPR, provides member states with flexibility to reconcile data protection with the right to freedom of expression and information.
However, the ECJ found this interpretation rather generous. The court emphasized that for an activity to be considered journalistic, it must pursue the specific purpose of disseminating information, opinions, or ideas to the public, regardless of the medium used. Crucially, this dissemination must involve a degree of editorial responsibility, aiming to inform the public on matters of public interest. Compiling a comprehensive database of criminal records, even if it uses publicly available information, primarily for commercial purposes and without any discernible editorial process aimed at informing a wider public discourse, does not meet this threshold.
This ruling underscores a fundamental distinction. While access to public records is vital for investigative journalism, the act of simply collecting and reselling that data, without any editorial framing, analysis, or narrative construction, is not journalism. It is data brokerage. The decision acts as a useful reminder to businesses eager to monetize public information that the legal protections afforded to the press are tied to a societal function, not merely the handling of data that might, in other contexts, be used by journalists.
For the wider media and tech industries, this judgement reinforces that the "journalism exemption" is not a free pass for any entity dealing with public information. Platforms and data processors seeking to invoke such exemptions will need to demonstrate a clear commitment to informing the public through editorial processes, rather than simply facilitating commercial access to raw data. It’s a subtle but significant check on the expanding definition of who, or what, gets to wear the journalistic mantle in the digital age.
