Skip to content

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to two types of entities – “controllers” and “processors.” 

A “controller” refers to an entity that “determines the purposes and means” of how personal information will be processed.[1] Determining the “means” of processing refers to deciding “how” information will be processed.[2] That does not necessitate, however, that a controller makes every decision with respect to information processing. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) distinguishes between “essential means” and “non-essential means.[3] “Essential means” refers to those processing decisions that are closely linked to the purpose and the scope of processing and, therefore, are considered “traditionally and inherently reserved to the controller.”[4] “Non-essential means” refers to more practical aspects of implementing a processing activity that may be left to third parties – such as processors.[5]

A “processor” refers to a company (or a person such as an independent contractor) that “processes personal data on behalf of [a] controller.”[6]

Data typically is needed to train and fine-tune modern artificial intelligence models. They use data – including personal information – in order to recognize patterns and predict results.

Whether an organization that utilizes personal information to train an artificial intelligence engine is a controller or a processor depends on the degree to which the organization determines the purpose for which the data will be used and the essential means of processing. The following chart discusses these variables in the context of training AI:

The following chart discusses these variables in the context of training AI:

FunctionActivities Indicative of a ControllerActivities Indicative of a Processor
Purpose of processing
Why the AI is being trained. If an organization makes its own decision to utilize personal information to train an AI, then the organization will likely be considered a “controller.”If an organization is using personal information provided by a third party to train an AI, and is doing so at the direction of the third party, then the organization may be considered a processor.
Essential means
Data types used in training. If an organization selects which data fields will be used to train an AI, the organization will likely be considered a “controller.”If an organization is instructed by a third party to utilize particular data types to train an AI, the organization may be a processor.
Duration personal information is held within the training engineIf an organization determines how long the AI can retain training data, it will likely be considered a “controller.”If an organization is instructed by a third party to use data to train an AI, and does not control how long the AI may access the training data, the organization may be a processor.
Recipients of the personal informationIf an organization determines which third parties may access the training data that is provided to the AI, that organization will likely be considered a “controller.”If an organization is instructed by a third party to use data to train an AI, but does not control who will be able to access the AI (and the training data to which the AI has access), the organization may be a processor.
Individuals whose information is includedIf an organization is selecting whose personal information will be used as part of training an AI, the organization will likely be considered a “controller.”If an organization is being instructed by a third party to utilize particular individuals’ data to train an AI, the organization may be a processor.


[1] GDPR, Article 4(7).

[1] GDPR, Article 4(7).

[2] EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, Version 1, adopted 2 Sept. 2020, at ¶ 33.

[3] EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, Version 1, adopted 2 Sept. 2020, at ¶ 38.

[4] EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, Version 1, adopted 2 Sept. 2020, at ¶ 38.

[5] EDPB, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR, Version 1, adopted 2 Sept. 2020, at ¶ 38.

[6] GDPR, Article 4(8).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David A. Zetoony David A. Zetoony

David Zetoony, Co-Chair of the firm’s U.S. Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, focuses on helping businesses navigate data privacy and cyber security laws from a practical standpoint. David has helped hundreds of companies establish and maintain ongoing privacy and security programs, and he

David Zetoony, Co-Chair of the firm’s U.S. Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, focuses on helping businesses navigate data privacy and cyber security laws from a practical standpoint. David has helped hundreds of companies establish and maintain ongoing privacy and security programs, and he has defended corporate privacy and security practices in investigations initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, and other data privacy and security regulatory agencies around the world, as well as in class action litigation.

Photo of Carsten A. Kociok Carsten A. Kociok

Carsten Kociok is a partner in the Technology, Financial Services and Data Privacy Practice in Berlin and Co-Head of Greenberg Traurig’s global Fintech Group. He advises national and international clients across all industries, including financial services, information technology, artificial intelligence, ecommerce, media, health

Carsten Kociok is a partner in the Technology, Financial Services and Data Privacy Practice in Berlin and Co-Head of Greenberg Traurig’s global Fintech Group. He advises national and international clients across all industries, including financial services, information technology, artificial intelligence, ecommerce, media, health care, telecoms, retail and real estate, on a wide variety of complex commercial and regulatory matters.

Carsten is a leading technology lawyer, ranked consistently in Band 1 for Fintech Legal in Germany since 2020. He has in-depth and wide-ranging experience in the areas of privacy and cybersecurity, payments law, financial services, e-money products, blockchain technology, and financial and banking regulation, as well as in artificial intelligence regulation – including compliance with the EU AI Act – and the integration of AI technologies into existing software systems.

Carsten regularly assists clients in licensing projects and audit proceedings with financial regulators and advises on the contractual and regulatory aspects of developing, implementing and operating financial technology products and transactions.

On the data privacy side, Carsten counsels clients on complex data-driven business models and regulatory matters, including on international data transfers, data privacy compliance, monetization of data, artificial intelligence, litigation, cybersecurity and data breach response.

Carsten regularly lectures and publishes on various FinTech and data privacy topics. Prior to joining the firm, Carsten worked at Olswang Germany for eight years and in the Capital Transaction Practice Group of an international law firm in New York.