Clearview AI Breached BC Privacy Law Appeal Court Holds

On February 18, 2026, the Court of Appeal for British Colombia (BCCA) issued its decision in Clearview AI Inc. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2026 BCCA 67, dismissing Clearview AI Inc.’s (Clearview’s) appeal from a judicial review of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s (the Commissioner’s) finding that it contravened British Columbia’s Protection of Information and Privacy Act (PIPA).

Clearview is a US-based company that sells facial recognition software, which is primarily marketed to law enforcement and other government agencies. It’s search engine scrapes facial images from publicly accessible websites (including social media) all over the world and stores the facial images and associated data (collectively, the “facial data”) on its servers. 

In early 2020, certain Canadian privacy commissioners commenced a joint investigation into whether Clearview‘s practices violated privacy laws in their jurisdictions. During the investigation, Clearview withdrew from the Canadian market. In December 2021, the Commissioner issued a decision finding Clearview contravened several provisions of PIPA (as previously reported by the E-TIPS® Newsletter here) and ordered, among other things, Clearview to use best efforts to cease the unauthorized collection, use and disclosure of images and biometric facial arrays from British Columbians; and delete any such data in its possession.

Clearview sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, arguing that: (1) PIPA was not constitutionally applicable to Clearview; (2) it was exempt from having to obtain consent because the information it collected was “publicly available” or because its purposes were reasonable such that consent should be implied; and (3) the Commissioner’s order was overbroad, unnecessary, and unenforceable. Clearview’s judicial review application was dismissed, and Clearview appealed to the BCCA on the same grounds.

On appeal, the BCCA found in favor of the Commissioner. For issue (1), the BCCA held that even though Clearview ceased marketing its services to BC-based entities, there still exists a sufficient connection between Clearview’s activities and BC such that PIPA applies. The court found this connection to exist based on Clearview’s continued scraping of facial data from people all over the world, including from individuals in BC. The BCCA also found, for issue (2), that it was reasonable for the Commissioner to conclude that the publicly available exemption did not apply, and that Clearview’s purposes for collecting the facial data were not reasonable. Finally, for issue (3), the BCCA found the Commissioner’s order to be reasonable and enforceable.

The BCCA accordingly dismissed Clearview’s appeal.

Summary By: Claire Bettio