PI is not the only actor working to defend our privacy. Many others file cases around the world seeking to restrain exploitative or otherwise problematic practices. Where possible, PI files interventions or amicus briefs in these important cases. Below you will find links to our current and past interventions.
Privacy International filed an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court challenging law enforcement access to personal data stored abroad
Privacy International filed an amicus curiae brief outlining the international implications of eroding safety features on mobile phones
Seven applicants complaints testing the scope of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's prerogative to conduct investigations. Their legal action was a result of PI’s campaign and support
Challenging the use of surveillance technologies in the context of terrorism-related measures
Smart meters can generate invasive data on households.
In September 2016, Privacy International intervened in the case of Catt v the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights.
General data retention obligations interfere with anonymity, which is an integral tool for individuals to protect their rights to privacy and free expression.
The case concerns an alleged smear campaign against Ismayilova, a well-known investigative journalist.
Privacy International filed an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case challenging the use of Cisco technology for the persecution of the Falun Gong minority in China.
A landmark case before the European Court of Justice on communications data retention where PI had intervened.
Privacy International intervened in a case before the European Court of Human Rights successfully challenging the unfettered use of surveillance measures as part of anti-terrorism legislation
Privacy International submitted an intervention to the Korean Constitutional Court challenging provisions of the Telecommunications Business Act
Privacy International challenged the compatibility of the Hungarian Electronic Communications Act with EU law in an intervention before the Hungarian Constitutional Court.
Privacy International filed an intervention at the Colombian Constitutional court challenging the mass surveillance provisions contained in the Colombian Police Code.
PI intervened in a French case challenging the retention of personal data under French law first at national level and then before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
PI intervened in the case challenging the constitutionality of South African surveillance law.
On 30 September 2019, Privacy International submitted a statement to the German Constitutional Court in a case concerning the government use of spyware, such as state trojans, in the context of criminal investigations.
Our intervention before the Commission in its review of the merger between Google and Fitbit
In March 2021 Privacy International intervened in a case in the European Court of Human Rights which challenges the use of social media intelligence by governmental agencies.
PI, together with Article19 and EFF intervened to outline how unrestricted surveillance of communications data interferences with the right to privacy and threatens freedom of expression.
PI supports the claim brought against TikTok in the Netherlands by the Foundation Take Back Your Privacy, which alleges that TikTok exploits the personal data of children users in violation of their privacy and data protection rights.
In December 2021, PI intervened in a case before the European Court of Human Rights which, among others, deals with a disclosure order that would facilitate “the decoding of communications”.
Privacy International intervened in a landmark case brought in the UK courts by asylum seekers against mobile phone seizures and data extraction. Judgment was handed down on 25 March 2022. The High Court found that the secret and blanket policy of the UK Home Office to seize and search migrants'
PI intervened to emphasise the legal standards applicable to redress mechanisms available to victims of unlawful surveillance
Seven applicants sought review from the European Court of Human Rights of the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s refusal to hear their challenges to the UK intelligence services mass intercpetion practices. Their legal action was a result of PI’s campaign and support
The applicants challenged the UK’s mass interception regime following PI’s campaign and support. As part of a friendly settlement reached by the parties in this case, the UK government admits that they violated the applicants’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
Two individuals applied to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge a UK tribunal’s refusal to investigate UK intelligence agencies’ interference with their right to privacy.
Court: Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) Case No. 1429/4/12/21 Status: Closed Update: In June 2022, the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) upheld the CMA’s decision on five of Meta’s six grounds of appeal, noting it had “no hesitation” in concluding the CMA’s finding that the merger substantially
We filed an expert affidavit in a case challenging Uganda's digital ID system, Ndaga Muntu.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights holds Colombia accountable for arbitrary intelligence activities against human rights defenders. PI filed an amicus in this case challenging the surveillance of human rights defenders in Colombia.
PI filed witness evidence in two cases brought by migrants against their GPS tracking by the UK immigration authorities.
PI, along with 7 other civil society organisations intervened before the French Constitutional Council, challenging the constitutionality of the law.
PI together with ARTICLE 19 intervened at the European Court of Human Rights to submit that digital device seizures and extraction performed at the border interfere with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, in particular when performed on journalists.
PI intervened in a case challenging the covert surveillance of activists and human rights defenders through intrusive technologies.
Privacy International intervened in the case of Nemanja Popovic v. Austria in the European Court of Human Rights. Our submission focused on the safeguards that should apply to data sharing, and its use in criminal proceedings, in the context of intelligence and law enforcement sharing.