1. Who They Are
Clearview AI is a US facial-recognition company that scraped more than 60 billion images of faces from the public internet — without the knowledge or consent of the people in them — into a searchable biometric database sold to police and government agencies. The book cites Clearview as proof that the surveillance economy "did not reform itself — it expanded, professionalized, and embedded itself deeper into the infrastructure of daily life. Your face is in their databases."
2. Verified Fines and Penalties — Four Countries, Reported in Full
| Date | Authority | Amount | Basis | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2024 | Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (Netherlands) | €30.5 million + up to €5.1 million in penalty payments | Illegally building a biometric database of Dutch citizens' faces without consent, transparency, or data access — GDPR violations | FINAL — Clearview did not contest, so it cannot appeal; as of mid-2025 it had not paid and penalties were accruing. The Dutch DPA is exploring holding Clearview's directors PERSONALLY liable — an unprecedented step |
| Oct 2022 / May 2023 | CNIL (France) | €20 million + €5.2 million overdue penalty | Unlawful biometric processing; failure to comply with the original order | Issued; non-compliance penalty added |
| 2022 | Garante (Italy) | €20 million | Unlawful biometric processing of persons in Italy; deletion ordered | Issued |
| Jul 2022 | HDPA (Greece) | €20 million | Unlawful biometric processing; ban on collection | Issued |
| May 2022 | ICO (United Kingdom) | £7.5 million | Scraping UK residents' images into a global facial-recognition database | CONTESTED — full record: a First-tier Tribunal overturned the fine on jurisdictional grounds (Oct 2023); the Upper Tribunal ruled for the ICO (Oct 2025), reviving the case; in Dec 2025 Clearview was granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, where it now sits |
Sources: Privacy Laws & Business (Dutch fine; director liability) · ICO's own statement (Upper Tribunal; Court of Appeal permission) · BABL AI enforcement round-up
3. The United States — Settling with the People Whose Faces It Took
In re Clearview AI Consumer Privacy Litigation (N.D. Ill.): on March 20, 2025, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman granted final approval to a first-of-its-kind settlement under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act — because Clearview could not pay cash damages that might have reached ruinous statutory levels, the nationwide class of people whose faces were scraped received a 23 percent equity stake in Clearview itself, valued around $51.75 million. A bipartisan coalition of 22 state attorneys general and DC objected that class members cannot know Clearview's true value or whether they will ever see money; the court approved anyway, reasoning that "necessity is the mother of invention." Under its earlier 2022 ACLU settlement, Clearview is barred from selling its database to most private entities in the US. Per the full-record rule: Clearview denied wrongdoing in all settlements, and it continues lawfully selling facial recognition to US law enforcement. Sources: Troutman (Regulatory Oversight) · Constangy (settlement mechanics)
4. Honest Accounting
The pattern this record shows is not hidden misconduct — it is adjudged and fined conduct that continues anyway: more than €100 million in European penalties across four countries, largely unpaid and uncollected because Clearview holds no European assets, while the company keeps operating in the American market. The enforcement gap is the story. Developments — including the Court of Appeal ruling and any Dutch director-liability action — will be added as verified.
5. Associations Noted in the Book
The book names Clearview alongside Cambridge Analytica and the Facebook Papers as markers of the surveillance economy's advance. Associations are noted for context; every company and person is documented on its own record.
Legal Disclaimer
This document is published as journalism and commentary in the public interest, protected as free speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It compiles information from public records, court filings, government announcements, parliamentary and congressional investigations, and reporting by established news organizations, together with the documented first-person accounts and analysis published in the books No Ethics in Big Tech and Ethics in Tech and Lack Thereof by Vahid Razavi.
Where a fine, judgment, or settlement is described, its status (paid, under appeal, overturned, or pending) is stated as reported by the issuing authority or by reputable press as of the verification date above. Allegations in open lawsuits and investigations are exactly that — allegations — and every party is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until a competent court rules otherwise. Where a company or executive has prevailed in court, denied an allegation, or had a claim dismissed, that outcome is reported here as well, because the credibility of this project rests on stating the record in full. Opinions and characterizations drawn from the books are the protected opinion of the author. Corrections supported by documentation are welcome via NoEthicsInBigTech.com/contact.
Research Credit
Deep research, source verification, and document preparation for this fact sheet were performed by Claude, the AI assistant built by Anthropic, working under the direction of author Vahid Razavi. Every fine amount, case citation, and status line above was checked against the primary or press source listed beside it on the verification date. This is a living document; new rulings, fines, and investigations will be added as they are verified.