AI Bias vs. Data Privacy: Can the EU’s Laws Find Balance?
- AI, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
- 23/05/2025
As AI increasingly shapes critical decisions in our lives, from hiring processes to loan approvals, ensuring these AI systems operate without bias has become a regulatory priority. Yet a fundamental tension has emerged, as effectively detecting algorithmic bias often requires access to the very sensitive personal data that data protection laws are designed to protect. This article explores how the European Union’s AI Act and GDPR Article 9 create both complementary protections and challenging contradictions for organizations seeking to develop fair AI models while respecting data privacy rights.
The Hidden Bias in AI
Artificial intelligence systems are often viewed as objective decision-makers that can eliminate human biases. In reality, these AI technologies often reflect and even worsen the bias already present in their training data. The recent Workday lawsuit provides a telling example, where an AI hiring tool was accused of discrimination based on race, age, and disability because it was trained on historically biased hiring decisions. Without oversight, AI algorithms can reinforce discrimination while seeming unbiased.
This risk is particularly acute in high-stakes applications. When AI systems make or influence employment decisions, they might contain gender or health-related biases that disadvantage certain applicants. In financial services, algorithms used for credit scoring may follow decision processes that mask bias based on factors such as clients’ residence or ethnicity. Even autonomous vehicles might be developed to detect pedestrians with lighter skin more accurately than those with darker skin. These examples show how AI bias can appear in different areas, harming rights and deepening inequalities.
Data Privacy Regulatory Framework
The EU has established two major legal frameworks that address these challenges from different angles: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the more recent AI Act.
GDPR Article 9 establishes special protections for sensitive personal data. It prohibits the processing of information revealing:
- racial or ethnic origin,
- political opinions,
- religious or philosophical beliefs,
- trade union membership,
- genetic data,
- biometric data,
- health data,
- data concerning a person’s sex life or sexual orientation.
This prohibition can only be lifted under specific circumstances, such as explicit consent from the data subject or when processing is necessary for substantial public interest. The regulation recognizes that this sensitive data needs extra protection because it is private and can be misused.
In contrast, the AI Act focuses on preventing algorithmic discrimination by adopting a risk-based approach to AI regulation. For high-risk AI systems, Article 10(5) specifically allows for the processing of special categories of personal data “to the extent that it is strictly necessary for the purposes of ensuring bias monitoring, detection and correction”. The Act requires providers of high-risk AI systems to implement risk management processes, conduct impact assessments, ensure inclusive design, and maintain high data quality standards to mitigate bias. These provisions recognize that addressing bias and discrimination in AI models sometimes requires analyzing the data that privacy policies typically restrict.
The Central Tension
The fundamental tension arises at the intersection of these two important regulations. To detect whether an AI system discriminates against protected groups, developers typically need data about those protected characteristics. For instance, to determine if a hiring algorithm discriminates based on ethnicity, researchers need to know applicants’ ethnicity to compare outcomes across different groups.
However, collecting and processing such sensitive personal data runs directly counter to GDPR’s data protection approach. While the AI Act permits such processing for bias detection in high-risk systems, it remains unclear whether this provision constitutes sufficient legal justification under GDPR’s strict privacy concerns. Organizations face a difficult choice: either fail to comprehensively test for bias (potentially violating the AI Act) or process sensitive data (potentially violating GDPR).
Without access to real-world sensitive personal data, research on bias detection often remains theoretical and abstract, limiting the development of effective solutions to algorithmic discrimination.
Practical Implications of AI Bias
This regulatory tension has significant implications across multiple sectors where AI is increasingly deployed. In employment contexts, AI systems selecting job applicants might contain bias related to gender, ethnicity, or health status. Organizations need to detect and address such biases but face legal uncertainty about how to collect and process the necessary data for such analysis.
Financial services face similar dilemmas with algorithmic credit scoring tools that might disadvantage certain groups. Banks and lenders increasingly use AI systems to assess loan or mortgage applications, but these systems may follow decisional processes that hide bias and discrimination based on protected characteristics. Effective oversight of these systems requires analyzing outcomes across demographic groups, which inevitably involves processing sensitive personal data.
Healthcare organizations using AI applications for diagnostics or treatment recommendations must be particularly careful, as they deal with health data already classified as sensitive under GDPR. Member States are entitled to maintain or impose further conditions regarding genetic, biometric, or health data processing, potentially adding another layer of complexity to data collection and data protection.
Navigating the Legal Landscape
Several approaches might help organizations navigate this complex regulatory landscape. First, explicit consent represents one pathway forward, as GDPR Article 9(2)(a) permits processing sensitive personal data with the data subject’s explicit consent. This requires more than standard consent — it must be freely given, specific, informed, unambiguous, and expressed through “an express statement of consent”. However, obtaining valid consent has practical challenges, particularly in contexts where power imbalances exist.
Second, anonymization techniques can reduce privacy concerns while still enabling some forms of bias detection. By removing direct identifiers while preserving information about protected characteristics, organizations might balance these competing priorities. However, true anonymization is difficult to achieve, especially when multiple data points about individuals are processed, and data may still be identifiable.
Third, synthetic data generation offers another promising approach, allowing researchers to create artificial datasets that reflect real-world distributions without containing actual personal data. However, validating these synthetic datasets against real-world scenarios remains challenging. Without access to real sensitive personal data for comparison, it’s difficult to ensure synthetic data accurately captures the complex patterns needed for bias detection.
Fourth, privacy-preserving computation methods like federated learning, differential privacy, and secure multi-party computation allow analysis of sensitive personal data while providing mathematical guarantees about data protection. These advanced techniques might enable bias detection without directly accessing raw sensitive data, though they require technical sophistication to implement correctly.
Reconciling Competing Priorities
The tension between the AI Act’s bias detection requirements and GDPR’s sensitive data protections creates a significant challenge for organizations developing and deploying AI systems in Europe. While these regulations share the common goal of protecting fundamental rights, their different approaches create practical dilemmas for compliance and call for updated privacy policies and internal procedures.
Organizations navigating this landscape should consider implementing robust data governance frameworks that account for both bias detection and data protection requirements. This includes conducting detailed data protection impact assessments, maintaining documentation of processing activities, and employing privacy-by-design principles throughout the AI model development lifecycle. Additionally, maintaining open communication with data protection authorities can help clarify expectations and demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts.
Policymakers and regulators also have a role to play in resolving this tension. Further guidance on how the AI Act and GDPR should be interpreted together would provide much-needed clarity. The issue of whether the AI Act’s bias-mitigation mandate constitutes sufficient legal justification for processing sensitive personal data under GDPR remains unresolved and requires authoritative interpretation.
Industry practitioners, researchers, and policymakers must collaborate to develop legal and secure ways to use real-world sensitive personal data for bias detection. This might include creating specialized research exemptions with appropriate safeguards, establishing trusted third parties for bias auditing, or developing technical standards for privacy-preserving bias detection in machine learning and AI technologies. These are essential steps to ensure that we use AI responsibly.
Ultimately, reconciling fairness and privacy concerns requires treating these values not as competing priorities but as complementary aspects of human dignity that our AI algorithms must respect. By thoughtfully addressing this tension, we can work toward AI systems that both protect data privacy and advance equality.
Conclusion
Striking the right balance between preventing AI bias and protecting sensitive personal data remains a complex but urgent task. While the AI Act underscores the importance of collecting and analyzing potentially sensitive information to detect and mitigate discrimination, GDPR Article 9 aims to safeguard exactly these types of personal data from misuse. Organizations seeking to deploy AI fairly thus confront a legal and ethical dilemma: how to gather the insights needed to identify bias without infringing individuals’ privacy rights. Potential solutions — ranging from explicit consent protocols and anonymization to advanced privacy-preserving techniques — offer pathways forward, but each comes with its own challenges and implementation costs. Ultimately, effective coordination among industry practitioners, researchers, and policymakers is essential to harmonize these competing priorities. By framing both data protection and fairness as integral components of human dignity, Europe’s regulatory framework can evolve to encourage innovation in AI while ensuring that vulnerable groups remain protected from harm — and data breaches.
Contact us
Fill in the form and we will contact you as soon as possible!
