Supreme Court: Media outlets disseminating personal data will bear responsibility

The Supreme Court has adopted a new Plenum decision “On the protection of personality rights,” introducing a number of innovations into judicial practice.

This was reported by the Court.

It was noted that previously, when one person disseminated false information about another, claims were brought under the institution of protection of honor and dignity, and if the information later proved to be true, such claims were dismissed. However, the dissemination of truthful information about a person without their consent also constitutes a violation of the law.

Such actions interfere with the constitutionally protected right to personal inviolability. Any person whose rights are violated may familiarize themselves with the information collected about them and demand the correction of inaccurate or incomplete data, as well as data obtained in violation of legal requirements, the removal of such information, compensation for moral damage, and other remedies.

With its new decision, the Supreme Court has distinguished this right from the right to protection of honor and dignity and has specifically emphasized that the right to personal inviolability, in the constitutional sense, implies the protection of the privacy of personal and family life. It serves to ensure respect for every individual’s personal and family life and enables them to feel comfortable and secure in society.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted and provided a broad interpretation of the right to respect for private and family life, which is an important institution of the right to personal inviolability but had previously remained relatively underprotected in judicial disputes.

The right to respect for private and family life means the right to keep personal and family life confidential and to be protected from unlawful interference, namely from the collection, storage, use, and dissemination of information about one’s private life without consent. This right may be defended by heirs even after a person’s death.

The law protects not only information relating to personal and family life but also a person’s home, vehicle, office space, equipment, as well as other personal property, animals, plants, and other objects belonging to the individual.

The collection, storage, use, and dissemination, without the person’s consent or any legal basis, of medical information, data on financial and property status, personal correspondence, information about one’s past and other personal secrets, address, marital status, height, age, sex, personal relations between spouses (emotional, sexual, and others), family behavior, reasons for divorce, children’s origin and health status, adoption-related information, as well as other confidential and sensitive family information, including malicious disclosure to the person concerned, are prohibited and give rise to civil liability.

The intentional and active collection of information about a person without any legal basis is prohibited.

For example, if a person accesses an information database containing confidential data in order to obtain personal information about another person for their own interests, such actions are unlawful and entail civil liability. However, if information becomes known accidentally and without intent, it will not be considered unlawful, provided that it is not used against the person concerned or disseminated. For instance, if a person mistakenly receives another person’s mobile phone of the same model and, upon opening it, accidentally sees private photos or correspondence, no liability arises as long as this information is not used or shared.

The dissemination of personal and family secret information without the consent of the individuals concerned is prohibited. In particular, dissemination through television or radio programs, social networks, and other mass channels may result in greater moral damage due to the large-scale nature of the disclosure. If dissemination is carried out via audio or video recordings, both the person who disseminated the material and the media outlet will unequivocally bear responsibility for violating the right to respect for private and family life.

If the content of a program poses a risk of unlawful interference with personality rights, media outlets running regular live broadcasts or serial programs must clearly warn participants in advance that they bear responsibility for statements and behavior that may violate the right to respect for private and family life. Otherwise, the media organization itself will bear responsibility for any violations.

If a person communicates information directly to the individual concerned in a mocking, humiliating, degrading, or defamatory manner, or with other malicious intent, this will be regarded as a violation of the right to personal inviolability and will constitute grounds for moral damage claims. For example, malicious disclosure to a person of truthful information about their health condition, physical disability, existence of a child born out of wedlock, or extramarital relations, including correspondence, photos, videos, and other legally protected personal data.

Furthermore, under the new decision, the Supreme Court has classified unauthorized entry, without consent or legal grounds, into a person’s home, workplace office, shelves, desk, computer, bag, or pockets as a violation of the right to personal inviolability. Following the Plenum decision, harm caused to a person’s animals or plants may also be recognized as grounds for moral damage.

Violation of these rights gives rise to civil liability regardless of whether it entails criminal liability.

In addition to those who disseminate personal and family secret information, persons responsible for storing such data, including institutions, organizations, enterprises, employers, clinics, mobile network operators, banks, other service providers, state bodies, social network platforms, as well as legal entities and individuals who unlawfully grant third parties access to such information, will also bear responsibility.

This is because they are obliged to protect personal data held within their information systems, prevent its dissemination, and prevent access to database information contained in electronic government portals without the person’s consent or legal grounds. Failure to do so constitutes interference with the right to personal inviolability.

If dissemination occurs with the person’s consent, civil liability does not arise. Consent must be clearly expressed and must not contradict the law or morality. Consent may be given in written or oral form, through conduct, or even by silence. For example, if a person “likes” and positively comments on a social media post about them that was initially made without consent, this is considered consent.

If information is publicly available or has been disclosed by the person themselves, no liability arises. For example, if a person shares their contact details, life events, illness, work activities, or partners on an online resource, this is considered voluntary public disclosure, and subsequent dissemination by others does not entail civil liability.

The dissemination of personal and family secret information by state bodies or other persons is permitted in cases provided by law. For instance, law enforcement authorities may share a wanted person’s photograph, clothing, height, age, sex, and similar information for the purpose of locating them without this being considered a violation.

If disseminated information falls within the sphere of public interest, it does not constitute a civil offense. As the behavior, decisions, and activities of public figures directly or indirectly affect society, their private lives are subject to public scrutiny.

However, dissemination must not exceed the bounds of public interest. For example, a journalist may inform the public about a local government official owning luxury real estate and vehicles inconsistent with their declared income. Although such property information is personal, it falls within the scope of legitimate public interest. However, disclosure of information about a child’s physical disability would constitute unlawful interference with private and family life, as it has no relevance to the performance of public duties.