Legal Challenges in Big Data Usage: Ownership and Control of Data- Asif

Asif

LL.M., School of Law

Dayananda Sagar University,Bengaluru

Abstract

The rise of big data has transformed the global digital economy, governance, and human interaction, generating complex legal questions around ownership and control of data. Traditional legal doctrines—rooted in tangible property and intellectual creations—struggle to accommodate the unique characteristics of data, which is non-rival, replicable, and borderless. This paper critically examines the evolving legal landscape governing data usage, focusing on ownership rights, control mechanisms, and their implications for privacy, competition, and human rights.

Through comparative analysis of frameworks in the European Union, United States, China, and India, it highlights how legal systems balance commercial innovation with individual autonomy. The study argues that while the notion of “data ownership” remains conceptually weak, the idea of informational control offers a more realistic and rights-based approach. It explores corporate data monopolies, cross-border transfer challenges, and ethical issues such as algorithmic bias and data colonialism.

Within the Indian context, the paper analyses the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, as a step toward establishing a control-based model of data governance. However, concerns persist regarding state exemptions, regulatory independence, and enforcement mechanisms. The paper concludes that future data policy must prioritize data stewardship—a model ensuring that data serves public interest without compromising individual rights. Balancing innovation with accountability, and economic value with human dignity, is the cornerstone of a just and sustainable data-driven society.

Introduction: The Rise of Big Data and Legal Dilemmas

The twenty-first century has ushered in an age where data is the most valuable resource, often described as the “new oil.” Every click, transaction, and digital interaction generates vast amounts of information that can be analyzed, traded, and monetized. This phenomenon, widely known as big data, has reshaped governance, commerce, and even personal life. Yet, this technological revolution has also created new and complex legal dilemmas.

Traditional legal systems are structured around tangible property and intellectual creations, but data is intangible, infinitely replicable, and lacks exclusivity. As a result, old legal doctrines fail to define who owns data, who can control its use, and how such control should be exercised responsibly. At the same time, the collection and processing of personal data by both governments and corporations raise serious concerns about privacy, autonomy, and surveillance.

The tension between innovation and rights protection lies at the heart of modern digital law. Understanding the ownership and control of data is therefore essential not only for commercial regulation but also for constitutional and human rights frameworks.

Concept and Legal Nature of Big Data

Big data is defined by its “five Vs” — Volume, Velocity, Variety, Veracity, and Value. These characteristics distinguish it from traditional data processing and make it both powerful and problematic. The legal significance of big data lies in its potential to influence decision-making in governance, business, and even personal relationships.

However, data is unlike traditional property. It can be duplicated infinitely without diminishing in value, lacks physical boundaries, and is often co-created by multiple parties. This creates a conceptual problem for law: ownership, as understood in property law, is based on exclusivity, while data thrives on sharing and re-use.

This control-based model aligns with modern privacy and data protection principles, which grant individuals rights over their data rather than proprietary ownership.

Comparative Legal Approaches to Data Governance

Different legal systems have adopted varying approaches to the governance of big data, reflecting their constitutional values and economic priorities.

European Union: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the most comprehensive data protection framework. It does not recognize ownership of data but instead grants data subjects a bundle of rights — to access, correct, erase, and transfer their personal data. The GDPR’s philosophy is rooted in human dignity and autonomy, making control—not ownership—the central legal idea.

United States: Follows a fragmented, sectoral model. Data protection is regulated through specific laws such as HIPAA (for health data), GLBA (for financial information), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) for consumers. The U.S. approach is more contractual and market-oriented, emphasizing notice and consent rather than fundamental rights.

China: Sees data as a matter of national sovereignty. Its Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and Data Security Law (2021) establish strict controls on data collection, processing, and cross-border transfer. These laws also reflect the state’s role in maintaining cybersecurity and data localization, asserting governmental control over digital resources.

India: Data governance has evolved significantly in recent years. Starting from the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the SPDI Rules, 2011, India now has the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. This Act introduces the concepts of data principals (individuals) and data fiduciaries (entities that determine the purpose of data processing). While it emphasizes consent and accountability, the law also allows broad exemptions for state agencies, raising questions about privacy and power balance.

Comparatively, global regimes differ — the EU focuses on rights, the U.S. on commerce, China on sovereignty, and India seeks a middle path between individual rights and state control.

Challenges of Corporate Control and Cross-Border Data Flow

One of the defining features of the digital economy is the enormous power of private corporations that dominate data collection and processing. Companies such as Google, Meta, and Amazon possess information on billions of users, granting them an unprecedented competitive advantage and social influence.

Most users “consent” to data processing without truly understanding the implications. Lengthy and complex Terms of Service agreements often obscure the real extent of data collection and sharing. Consequently, consent becomes a legal fiction rather than a genuine expression of free will. This leads to data asymmetry — corporations possess full knowledge and control, while users remain largely powerless.

From a legal standpoint, this raises concerns about fairness, informed consent, and monopolistic practices. Antitrust regulators in the EU and India have started to view data dominance as a form of market abuse. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has begun examining whether control over consumer data can create barriers to competition, similar to control over physical infrastructure.

Cross-border data transfer presents another major challenge. Because data moves instantaneously across jurisdictions, conflicts arise between national laws. The European Union restricts transfers to countries with “adequate protection,” while India’s DPDP Act allows transfer only to approved nations. Meanwhile, China mandates localization of critical data within its territory. These differing rules complicate international commerce, cloud computing, and research collaboration.

The tension between free data flow and data sovereignty will continue to shape global digital policy for years to come.

Data, Privacy, and Ethical Dimensions

The issues of data ownership and control are deeply connected to privacy, ethics, and human rights. Ownership suggests dominion, while privacy implies autonomy. In data governance, control becomes the bridge between these concepts.

The Indian Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court specifically acknowledged informational privacy — the right of individuals to control the collection and dissemination of their personal information. Similarly, in Google Spain v. AEPD (2014), the European Court of Justice established the “right to be forgotten,” allowing individuals to request the removal of outdated or irrelevant personal information.

Beyond privacy, big data raises ethical concerns about autonomy and fairness. Algorithms trained on biased datasets can reproduce discrimination in hiring, lending, or policing. Predictive analytics can influence human behavior, challenging the idea of free will. Moreover, the phenomenon of data colonialism — where global technology companies extract data from developing nations — mirrors historical patterns of economic exploitation.

Legal frameworks must therefore integrate ethical safeguards, including algorithmic transparency, accountability, and fairness. Data protection is not merely about confidentiality; it is about preserving human dignity in a data-driven society.

India’s Legal Framework and the Way Forward

India’s current data protection framework under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 represents a critical milestone. It seeks to balance individual rights with national and commercial interests. The Act defines key roles — data principal, data fiduciary, and data processor — and emphasizes consent, purpose limitation, and data minimization. It also introduces rights of access, correction, and erasure for individuals.

However, challenges remain. The Act permits broad government exemptions for security, order, and investigation purposes, which may weaken individual safeguards. The Data Protection Board, although established as a regulator, lacks the autonomy and enforcement power of global counterparts like the EU Data Protection Authorities.

The future of data governance in India depends on striking a fair balance between innovation, privacy, and accountability. Ownership must yield to responsible control — a model that recognizes data as a shared societal resource governed by trust and law.

Conclusion

The debate over ownership and control of data reflects deeper questions about the nature of power and freedom in the digital age. Data has become the foundation of economic growth, governance, and personal identity, yet the law is still evolving to define its boundaries.

The global trend suggests that the language of control and rights offers a more just and realistic solution than that of ownership. For India and the world, the challenge lies in building legal systems that protect privacy, ensure fairness, and encourage innovation. The ultimate goal must be to make data serve humanity — not to make humanity serve data.

References