Privacy Protection versus Fraud Prevention in Injury Claims

The tension between privacy and fraud prevention in personal injury claims is topical. The GDPR requires minimal data processing, but insurers may apply profiling provided it is proportionate. CIEL only shares personal data with authorised parties, with encryption and access logs. Victims can report data breaches to the AP. Recent case law, such as ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:1234, ruled that automatic inclusion without hearing and opportunity to be heard violates privacy. Fraud prevention does justify more intensive checks, such as medical examinations. Solutions: pseudonymisation of data and periodic audits. For victims, this means: you can refuse consent, but risk claim processing. Alternatives such as blockchain for secure data exchange are gaining ground. The balance is crucial; excessive surveillance can provoke lawsuits. Experts advocate for transparent criteria and independent supervisors. In personal injury law, your right to privacy weighs heavily, but fraud costs society billions. Understand the trade-off to strengthen your position in negotiations with insurers. (197 words)