Is Consent Required for Processing Personal Data via LLMs?

Kathrin Gardhouse
Jun 10, 2024
Share this post
Sharing to FacebookSharing to LinkedInSharing to XSharing to Email

Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), consent is only one of the legal bases that can be used to process personal data, including when using Large Language Models (LLMs) to boost the efficiency of processing personal information. While obtaining consent has its advantages, for example the possibility of a clear audit trail if consent is properly managed, it is not without its own pitfalls. Valid consent must be informed, freely given, specific, and unambiguous. This is by no means a low hurdle, as we can see from hefty fines being imposed for not meeting these requirements.

When making the decision on which legal basis to rely upon when processing personal data via LLMs, it will be helpful to know in which instances consent may be the preferred or even required choice, and that’s what we explore in this article.

Examples Where Consent is the Safer Choice or Required:

Personalized Marketing Using LLMs: If a company wants to use LLMs to analyze customer behavior and create personalized marketing campaigns, explicit consent would typically be required when the individual who is marketed to is a child. Recital 38 provides that children merit special protection with regard to their personal data because they may be less aware of the risks, consequences, and safeguards as well as their rights. Furthermore, the recital explicitly brings the example of marketing and creating personality or user profiles as an instance where special protection is particularly crucial. The recital does, however, not specifically require that this special protection must be provided in the form of a strict consent requirement.

There might be other ways to grant special protection, unless of course a general consent requirement already exists for personalized marketing. That is not the case, though. Recital 47 says that “The processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest.” Legitimate interest is an alternative legal basis which organizations can rely on for the processing of personal data. There are, however, strict requirements that must be fulfilled, first and foremost a demonstration that the business’s interests are not overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. Recital 47 does not negate this requirement; plausibly, it merely ensures that direct marketing is not per se excluded from being considered as a legitimate interest. Thus, it is possible for the legitimate interest basis to suffice, even when the data of children is concerned, but in order for ‘special protection’ to be granted, at the very least, the interests, fundamental rights and freedoms of the child will have to be weighted more heavily against the business interests.

A final consideration must be given to Recital 50 which addresses the processing of personal data for purposes other than those for which the data was collected. Generally, it is not required to establish an independent legal basis for such secondary purposes, provided the secondary processing purpose is “compatible” with the original purpose, the determination of which warrants its own post. Highlighting only one element that factors into the compatibility assessment, the reasonable expectations of the individual must be considered. Presumably, there will be many instances in which the data that an organization wishes to run through an LLM model to expedite personalized marketing campaigns was originally collected for a different purpose, perhaps on the legitimate interest basis. Here, Recital 50 says “Where the data subject has given consent […], the controller should be allowed to further process the personal data irrespective of the compatibility of the purposes.” In other words, if the legitimate interest exception was relied upon for the original, primary purpose collection of the data, a determination must be made whether the personalized marketing purpose is ‘compatible’ with the primary purpose. If, on the other hand, consent is obtained for personalized marketing, the onerous compatibility determination is not necessary.

Thus, for both adults’ and children’s data processing for personalized marketing purposes it is a good idea to obtain express consent. While relying on the legitimate interest exception is possible, at least in the case of adults’ data, the balancing of interests may result in the finding that the interests of individuals may override the marketing interests of organizations.

When it comes to email marketing, whether supported by LLMs or not, Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, aka the ePrivacy Directive, prohibits direct marketing of non-customers without consent. This may change again, though, if the ePrivacy Regulation ever arises from the current stalemate between EU institutions it has been stuck in for almost 2 years.

Sentiment Analysis on Social Media Comments: Sentiment analysis, often referred to as opinion mining, is a powerful tool that allows businesses to gauge public opinion by analyzing the emotional tone behind social media posts, comments, and reviews. By leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and other advanced AI techniques, companies can gain insights into customer preferences, emerging trends, and potential areas of concern.

Social media content, even when publicly available, can be considered personal data if it can be used to identify an individual either directly or in conjunction with other data. Consequently, the GDPR applies, and we have to ask what requirements must be met to allow such processing of this data.

As discussed above, it is possible that the collection of opinions is the primary purpose and that a legitimate interest can form a valid basis for this collection. But if the analysis is used for purposes beyond what the user might reasonably expect, such as targeted advertising, a compatibility analysis is required, or obtaining consent for this secondary purpose.

Obtaining consent may be the better option if the opinions collected contain “special categories" of data, which include details about an individual's race, religion, political opinions, health, and more. For instance, analyzing social media content for sentiments regarding a political event might capture individuals' political affiliations, in which case the data cannot be processed based on legitimate interest.

Article 9 of the GDPR sets out 10 permissible reasons for processing special categories of data, consent being  the one that will most plausibly apply in the case of sentiment analysis.

Examples Where Consent May Not Be Required:

Processing for Contractual Obligations: If an organization uses LLMs to process personal data for the purpose of fulfilling a contract with the individual, such as processing an online order, consent may not be required. In this case, the legal basis for processing could be the necessity to fulfill a contract. Imagine an online travel booking platform that offers flight, hotel, and car rental reservations. Customers can browse options, select their preferences, and complete the booking process through the platform's website or mobile app. Now the platform decides to implement an LLM-powered chatbot to assist customers during the booking process. The chatbot can answer questions, provide recommendations, and even facilitate the booking process by collecting necessary information such as travel dates, destinations, passenger details, and payment information. Note that payment information is not included in the definition of special categories of personal data under Article 9, hence explicit consent for this kind of processing does not seem to be required.

Compliance with Legal Obligations: If the processing of personal data using LLMs is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the organization is subject, consent may not be required. For example, if a financial institution uses LLMs to detect fraudulent activities, this could be considered a legal obligation because the bank is subject to anti-money laundering  and anti-terrorist financing obligations.

Conclusion

The requirement for consent under the GDPR when using LLMs to process personal information is nuanced and depends on the specific context, purpose, and type of processed information. Organizations must carefully assess the nature of the data and the expectations of the individuals to determine whether consent is required. It is advisable to consult with legal experts or data protection authorities to ensure compliance with the GDPR, as failure to obtain proper consent when required can lead to significant fines and penalties.

Data Left Behind: AI Scribes’ Promises in Healthcare

Data Left Behind: Healthcare’s Untapped Goldmine

The Future of Health Data: How New Tech is Changing the Game

Why is linguistics essential when dealing with healthcare data?

Why Health Data Strategies Fail Before They Start

Private AI to Redefine Enterprise Data Privacy and Compliance with NVIDIA

EDPB’s Pseudonymization Guideline and the Challenge of Unstructured Data

HHS’ proposed HIPAA Amendment to Strengthen Cybersecurity in Healthcare and how Private AI can Support Compliance

Japan's Health Data Anonymization Act: Enabling Large-Scale Health Research

What the International AI Safety Report 2025 has to say about Privacy Risks from General Purpose AI

Private AI 4.0: Your Data’s Potential, Protected and Unlocked

How Private AI Facilitates GDPR Compliance for AI Models: Insights from the EDPB's Latest Opinion

Navigating the New Frontier of Data Privacy: Protecting Confidential Company Information in the Age of AI

Belgium’s Data Protection Authority on the Interplay of the EU AI Act and the GDPR

Enhancing Compliance with US Privacy Regulations for the Insurance Industry Using Private AI

Navigating Compliance with Quebec’s Act Respecting Health and Social Services Information Through Private AI’s De-identification Technology

Unlocking New Levels of Accuracy in Privacy-Preserving AI with Co-Reference Resolution

Strengthened Data Protection Enforcement on the Horizon in Japan

How Private AI Can Help to Comply with Thailand's PDPA

How Private AI Can Help Financial Institutions Comply with OSFI Guidelines

The American Privacy Rights Act – The Next Generation of Privacy Laws

How Private AI Can Help with Compliance under China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL)

PII Redaction for Reviews Data: Ensuring Privacy Compliance when Using Review APIs

Independent Review Certifies Private AI’s PII Identification Model as Secure and Reliable

To Use or Not to Use AI: A Delicate Balance Between Productivity and Privacy

To Use or Not to Use AI: A Delicate Balance Between Productivity and Privacy

News from NIST: Dioptra, AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) Generative AI Profile, and How PII Identification and Redaction can Support Suggested Best Practices

Handling Personal Information by Financial Institutions in Japan – The Strict Requirements of the FSA Guidelines

日本における金融機関の個人情報の取り扱い - 金融庁ガイドラインの要件

Leveraging Private AI to Meet the EDPB’s AI Audit Checklist for GDPR-Compliant AI Systems

Who is Responsible for Protecting PII?

How Private AI can help the Public Sector to Comply with the Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024

A Comparison of the Approaches to Generative AI in Japan and China

Updated OECD AI Principles to keep up with novel and increased risks from general purpose and generative AI

Is Consent Required for Processing Personal Data via LLMs?

The evolving landscape of data privacy legislation in healthcare in Germany

The CIO’s and CISO’s Guide for Proactive Reporting and DLP with Private AI and Elastic

The Evolving Landscape of Health Data Protection Laws in the United States

Comparing Privacy and Safety Concerns Around Llama 2, GPT4, and Gemini

How to Safely Redact PII from Segment Events using Destination Insert Functions and Private AI API

WHO’s AI Ethics and Governance Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models operating in the Health Sector – Data Protection Considerations

How to Protect Confidential Corporate Information in the ChatGPT Era

Unlocking the Power of Retrieval Augmented Generation with Added Privacy: A Comprehensive Guide

Leveraging ChatGPT and other AI Tools for Legal Services

Leveraging ChatGPT and other AI tools for HR

Leveraging ChatGPT in the Banking Industry

Law 25 and Data Transfers Outside of Quebec

The Colorado and Connecticut Data Privacy Acts

Unlocking Compliance with the Japanese Data Privacy Act (APPI) using Private AI

Tokenization and Its Benefits for Data Protection

Private AI Launches Cloud API to Streamline Data Privacy

Processing of Special Categories of Data in Germany

End-to-end Privacy Management

Privacy Breach Reporting Requirements under Law25

Migrating Your Privacy Workflows from Amazon Comprehend to Private AI

A Comparison of the Approaches to Generative AI in the US and EU

Benefits of AI in Healthcare and Data Sources (Part 1)

Privacy Attacks against Data and AI Models (Part 3)

Risks of Noncompliance and Challenges around Privacy-Preserving Techniques (Part 2)

Enhancing Data Lake Security: A Guide to PII Scanning in S3 buckets

The Costs of a Data Breach in the Healthcare Sector and its Privacy Compliance Implications

Navigating GDPR Compliance in the Life Cycle of LLM-Based Solutions

What’s New in Version 3.8

How to Protect Your Business from Data Leaks: Lessons from Toyota and the Department of Home Affairs

New York's Acceptable Use of AI Policy: A Focus on Privacy Obligations

Safeguarding Personal Data in Sentiment Analysis: A Guide to PII Anonymization

Changes to South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act to Take Effect on March 15, 2024

Australia’s Plan to Regulate High-Risk AI

How Private AI can help comply with the EU AI Act

Comment la Loi 25 Impacte l'Utilisation de ChatGPT et de l'IA en Général

Endgültiger Entwurf des Gesetzes über Künstliche Intelligenz – Datenschutzpflichten der KI-Modelle mit Allgemeinem Verwendungszweck

How Law25 Impacts the Use of ChatGPT and AI in General

Is Salesforce Law25 Compliant?

Creating De-Identified Embeddings

Exciting Updates in 3.7

EU AI Act Final Draft – Obligations of General-Purpose AI Systems relating to Data Privacy

FTC Privacy Enforcement Actions Against AI Companies

The CCPA, CPRA, and California's Evolving Data Protection Landscape

HIPAA Compliance – Expert Determination Aided by Private AI

Private AI Software As a Service Agreement

EU's Review of Canada's Data Protection Adequacy: Implications for Ongoing Privacy Reform

Acceptable Use Policy

ISO/IEC 42001: A New Standard for Ethical and Responsible AI Management

Reviewing OpenAI's 31st Jan 2024 Privacy and Business Terms Updates

Comparing OpenAI vs. Azure OpenAI Services

Quebec’s Draft Regulation Respecting the Anonymization of Personal Information

Version 3.6 Release: Enhanced Streaming, Auto Model Selection, and More in Our Data Privacy Platform

Brazil's LGPD: Anonymization, Pseudonymization, and Access Requests

LGPD do Brasil: Anonimização, Pseudonimização e Solicitações de Acesso à Informação

Canada’s Principles for Responsible, Trustworthy and Privacy-Protective Generative AI Technologies and How to Comply Using Private AI

Private AI Named One of The Most Innovative RegTech Companies by RegTech100

Data Integrity, Data Security, and the New NIST Cybersecurity Framework

Safeguarding Privacy with Commercial LLMs

Cybersecurity in the Public Sector: Protecting Vital Services

Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) Requirements under Law25

Elevate Your Experience with Version 3.5

Fine-Tuning LLMs with a Focus on Privacy

GDPR in Germany: Challenges of German Data Privacy (Part 2)

Comply with US Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence using Private AI

How to Comply with EU AI Act using PrivateGPT