The CJEU held in C-203/22 that an automated-decision subject is entitled under GDPR to meaningful information about the procedure and principles actually applied; merely handing over a complex formula or algorithm is insufficient.

SocioLens project,

Claim LD12-HQ-C08 (v1.0)

Research opportunities this claim motivates

What this claim leaves open for research. Each is a hypothesis about a gap, not a finding.

How often do people use GDPR rights over automated decisions, and what happens?The Court of Justice set what people are entitled to receive (meaningful information about the procedure and principles actually applied; handing over a complex formula or algorithm is not enough), but the claim explicitly does not show common use, low burden or successful remedies.

Provenance and status

Claim type: Fact
Publication status: Eligible for publication
Verification state: Checked against the primary source. Who checked this claim is not recorded for it; claim checks so far were AI-led, and no person has checked claims against their sources.
Does not license: Common use, low procedural burden or successful remedy rates
Limitations: Single legal dispute; population uptake unknown
Source (as cited): CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117
Source type: Court decision (recorded as “Court decision primary”)
Institutional position: EU judiciary
Maturity of the evidence: Mature evidence
Recorded date: 25 September 2026
Currentness / correction: This is the current version. No correction or concern is recorded on its sources.

Sources this version cites

CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117 (Court decision)
Read the original

Version

This is the current version, v1.0. Earlier versions stay available, and their records never change.

Versions: v1.0 · current

Raw record: every recorded field, with its coded values

All 25 canonical Claim fields, verbatim, with the coded values derived from them. The plain-language labels above are read from these.

Claim type (coded): FACT (as printed: “FACT”)
Publication status (coded): ELIGIBLE (as printed: “ELIGIBLE”)
Verification state (coded): CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY
Source type (coded): COURT_DECISION_PRIMARY
Maturity (coded): MATURE

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD12-HQ-C08	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	The CJEU held in C-203/22 that an automated-decision subject is entitled under GDPR to meaningful information about the procedure and principles actually applied; merely handing over a complex formula or algorithm is insufficient.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	FACT	base_types: FACT
4	RESEARCH STRAND	C — Rights/remedies	—
5	MATURITY	MATURE	states: MATURE
6	SOURCE	CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117	source_ids: SRC-LD12-CJEU-C203-22-2025
7	SOURCE TYPE	Court decision primary	classes: COURT_DECISION_PRIMARY
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	EU judiciary	—
9	SCOPE	GDPR automated credit scoring; EU/Austria	—
10	DESIGN	Legal adjudication	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	Preliminary reference	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	Credit-scoring system	—
13	COMPARATOR	Controller disclosure	—
14	MAIN RESULT	Meaningful intelligible explanation standard; confidentiality interests require authority/court balancing.	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	Content of a formal explanation right	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	Common use, low procedural burden or successful remedy rates	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	Single legal dispute; population uptake unknown	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	GDPR doctrine provides stronger realized rights evidence than future AI Act high-risk provisions	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	EU/Austria / multilingual official judgment	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Litigation burden may advantage well-resourced claimants; incidence unmeasured	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	D6.4, D5, D4a, L-A	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	DPA/court use-rate and remedy-outcome data	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE	state: ELIGIBLE
25	RECORDED DATE	2026-09-25	—

Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: D6.4 (SUB_AREA); D5 (DOMAIN); D4a (SUB_AREA); L-A (LENS)

The sources as recorded, with their record IDs and coded source types:

Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)

“CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117” → CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117 (SRC-LD12-CJEU-C203-22-2025--v1.0) — CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117; class COURT_DECISION_PRIMARY (explicit public provenance pin)

Cited by Living Debate versions

Regulation-in-Practice: Rights, Compliance & Developmental Steering (v0.1) LD-12

Cite this page

SocioLens project. (2026, September 25). The CJEU held in C-203/22 that an automated-decision subject is entitled under GDPR to meaningful information about the procedure and principles actually applied; merely handing over a complex formula or algorithm is insufficient [Claim LD12-HQ-C08, version v1.0]. SocioLens. https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld12-hq-c08/v1.0/

@misc{sociolens_ld12_hq_c08_v1_0,
  author = {{SocioLens project}},
  title = {The CJEU held in C-203/22 that an automated-decision subject is entitled under GDPR to meaningful information about the procedure and principles actually applied; merely handing over a complex formula or algorithm is insufficient.},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-09-25},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld12-hq-c08/v1.0/}},
  note = {Claim LD12-HQ-C08, version v1.0}
}

The link points to this version, whose record never changes. For a finding, cite the original study as well: SocioLens summarizes research and does not replace it.

Research-of-record provenance

Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 643850f195aa8f06c984fed9dcebd126ff6d6a2b450c879759a9a4f1089d63fd.

Frozen Drive-derived inputs

R08 — LD-12 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0 — LOCKED (v1.0) — Drive ID 1sdIAYxbpV_VV6_xzqmFgCPwej0RadgAopFLRC9iZH5Y; revision: NOT_EXPOSED_BY_DRIVE_TEXT_EXPORT; Drive modified 2026-09-26T06:41:13.718Z; block “ENTRY 08 — LD12-HQ-C08” SHA-256 f02d270e8dd6e33af09f977819575fd4a9b9369d145a14e8630cc93088afa852; SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status “CURRENT.”; frozen fixture fixtures/frozen/r08-ld12-claim-ledger-v1.0.
SocioLens — Proof Source Registry v0.4 (v0.4) — Drive ID 1_-GLmj6PfetWDQH2KldMv-61vmSmzdAyyxgZZZCFnbE; revision: NOT_EXPOSED_BY_DRIVE_TEXT_EXPORT; Drive modified 2026-09-27T19:04:00.374Z; block “REGISTRY ENTRY SRC-LD12-CJEU-C203-22-2025” SHA-256 27489143d0ec7f53eea06ccdcc2ad9ca6db0e4be31bc20ab308f2321d4e0c6de; SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status “CURRENT PROOF SOURCE REGISTRY.”; frozen fixture fixtures/frozen/proof-source-registry-v0.4.

Builder decisions (not Drive data)

VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the canonical ledger artifact version (R08 — LD-12 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0); Implementation Architecture Selection §5 logical_id/version convention.
CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status for "R08 — LD-12 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0 — LOCKED": "CURRENT."
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-LD12-CJEU-C203-22-2025--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 08 — LD12-HQ-C08 cites "CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117"; Builder identification: the cited work is Proof Source Registry v0.4 identity SRC-LD12-CJEU-C203-22-2025 (canonical label "CJEU C-203/22, ECLI:EU:C:2025:117"), Registry-linked to this logical Claim; SocioLens record v1.0 is its sole record.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-LD12-CJEU-C203-22-2025--v1.0 — basis: Issue #5 proof rendering (Architecture Proof Protocol v0.1 AP-08 / Amendment v1.2 §6): explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion — the pinned field-6 Source record.