Personal Data Ownership: Legal Analysis and a Proposed Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35516/Law.2026.13580Keywords:
Personal data, Jordanian personal data protection law of 2023, GDPR, CCPA, privacy.Abstract
Objective: This paper explores the ownership model for personal data protection in comparison to competing models, assesses the legal grounds for applying property rights to personal data, and suggests a regulatory framework for individual ownership.
Methods: This study utilizes a doctrinal methodology to analyze the concepts of ownership and property. It compares the model of ownership with the main frameworks for personal data protection, examines the legal basis for applying ownership rights to personal data, and proposes a regulatory model for personal data ownership.
Results: The findings indicate that the ownership model may offer stronger protection for personal data compared to other models, such as fiduciary, human rights, and self-determination models. Consequently, this study suggests adopting a property model akin to that of intellectual property, which differentiates between moral rights and economic rights.
Conclusion: Protecting privacy and personal data requires recognizing individuals' property rights over their information. Ownership appears to provide better protection for personal data compared to other models. However, existing Personal Data Protection Laws (PDPLs) do not include any clear resolution regarding the debate over personal data ownership. Identifying this gap, this paper argues that property rights are a natural right and that the concept of property includes both tangible and intangible assets. Therefore, it proposes a regulatory model for personal data ownership. Similar to intellectual property, personal data encompasses both moral and economic rights.
Downloads
References
Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442–492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442
Al-Khouri, A. (2012). Data ownership: Who owns “my data”? International Journal of Management & Information Technology, 2(1), 1–8.
Balkin, J. (2020, January 10). The fiduciary model of privacy. Harvard Law Review Forum.
Bambauer, J. (2024, April 22). How to get the property out of privacy law. The Yale Law Journal Forum.
Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2019). The privacy interest in property. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 167, 869–920.
Bergelson, V. (2003). It’s personal but is it mine? Toward property rights in personal information. University of California Davis Law Review, 37, 379–451.
Blicharz, G. (2024). Law and the study of the commons: The in personam and in rem rights paradigms. In P. Hellwege & M. Soniewicka (Eds.), Law and interdisciplinary (pp. 283–316). Mohr Siebeck.
Bu Juma’a, Y. (2018). الحقوق الملازمة للشخصية وتقسيماتها: دراسة مقارنة على ضوء القانون والفقه والقضاء [Inherent rights and its categories: A comparative study based on law, jurisprudence, and judiciary]. Legal Studies Journal – Sovereignty and Globalization Section, 4(1), 341–359.
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (2018).
Code Civil [Civil Code] (1804) (G. Rouhette, Trans.).
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2024). Fact sheet: Protection of personal data. https://curia.europa.eu
D’Hauwers, R., & Vandercruysse, L. (2025). Competitive advantage and personal data ecosystems: A typology of personal data control constellations. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010008
Determann, L. (2019). Privacy and data protection. Moscow Journal of International Law, (1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2019-1-18-26
di Robilant, A. (2012). Common ownership and equality of autonomy. McGill Law Journal, 58(2), 265–320. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017516ar
Dobkin, A. (2017). Information fiduciaries in practice: Data privacy and user expectations. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 33(1), 3–50.
Esmaeili, H., & Grigg, B. (2016). The boundaries of Australian property law. Cambridge University Press.
Filler, D., Haendler, D., & Fischer, J. (2022). Negligence at the breach: Information fiduciaries and the duty to care for data. Connecticut Law Review, 54(1), 105–149.
Finck, M., & Pallas, F. (2020). They who must not be identified—Distinguishing personal from non-personal data under the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 10(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz026
Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.
Graux, H. (2024). What is data ownership, and does it still matter under EU data law? An exploration of traditional concepts of data ownership, and of the expected impact of the Data Act. Data.europa.eu.
Hazel, S. (2020). Personal data as property. Syracuse Law Review, 70, 1055–1112.
Janeček, V. (2018). Ownership of personal data in the Internet of Things. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(5), 1040–1052.
Jordanian Civil Law No. 43 of 1976, Official Gazette No. 2645.
Jordanian Law of Author Rights No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
Judgment of December 15, 1983, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 65 BVerfGE 1.
Katz, L. (2017). Philosophy of property law, three ways. In J. Tasioulas (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to the philosophy of law (pp. 371–389). Cambridge University Press.
Khan, L., & Pozen, D. (2019). A skeptical view of information fiduciaries. Harvard Law Review, 133, 497–540. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3341661
Khurrum, S., Naqvi, H., & Batool, K. (2023). A comparative analysis between General Data Protection Regulations and California Consumer Privacy Act. Journal of Computer Science, Information Technology and Telecommunication Engineering, 4(1), 326–332.
Litman, J. (2000). Information privacy/information property. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1283–1313. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.218274
Michele, F., & Pallas, F. (2020). They who must not be identified—Distinguishing personal from non-personal data under the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 10(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz026
Mingaleva, Z., & Mirskikh, I. (2015). Psychological aspects of intellectual property protection. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 190, 221–226.
Oulasvirta, A., Suomalainen, T., Hamari, J., Lampinen, A., & Karvonen, K. (2014). Transparency of intentions decreases privacy concerns in ubiquitous surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0585
Parkinson, B. (2018). Personal data: Definition and access (Doctoral thesis, University of Southampton).
Personal Data Protection Law No. 24 of 2023, Official Gazette No. 5881, 4338 (Jordan).
Pierre, B. (1997). Classification of property and conceptions of ownership in civil and common law. Revue générale de droit, 28(2), 235–274. https://doi.org/10.7202/1035639ar
Purtova, N. (2010, September). Property in personal data: Second life of an old idea in the age of cloud computing, chain informatisation, and ambient intelligence (Working Paper No. 2010/017, Version 1.0). TILT Law & Technology. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1641027
Purtova, N. (2011). Property rights in personal data: A European perspective (Doctoral thesis, Tilburg University).
Purtova, N. (2015). The illusion of personal data as no one’s property. Law, Innovation and Technology, 7(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2015.1052646
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
Related. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved May 15, 2026, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/related
Sandefur, T. (2023). The natural right of property. Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, 9(4), 673–706. https://doi.org/10.37419/JPL.V9.I4.10
Savona, M. (2019). The value of data: Towards a framework to redistribute it. Science Policy Research Unit. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3476668
Seipp, D. (1981). The right to privacy in nineteenth century America. Harvard Law Review, 94, 1892–1910. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1568
Shehu, V., & Shehu, V. (2023). Human rights in the technology era – Protection of data rights. European Journal of Economics, Law and Social Sciences, 7(2), 1–10.
Solove, D. (2001). Privacy and power: Computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Review, 53, 1393–1462. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.248300
The official portal for European data. (2024). What is data ownership, and does it still matter under EU data law? An exploration of traditional concepts of data ownership, and of the expected impact of the Data Act. https://data.europa.eu
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. (2025). Farley v Paymaster, Case No. CA-2024-000578.
Thouvenin, F. (2021). Informational self-determination: A convincing rationale for data protection law? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 246–256. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jipitec12§ion=41
Thouvenin, F., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2021). Data ownership and data access rights: Meaningful tools for promoting the European digital single market? In M. Burri (Ed.), Big data and global trade law (pp. 317–339). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108919234.020
Trakman, L., Walters, R., & Zeller, B. (2019). Tort and data protection law: Are there any lessons to be learnt? European Data Protection Law Review, 5(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/4/8
Understanding data ownership under GDPR: What you need to know. (n.d.). Privacy Engine. https://privacyengine.io
Verhulst, S. (2023). Operationalizing digital self-determination. Data & Policy, 5, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.11
Vivarelli, A. (2020). The crisis of the right to informational self-determination. The Italian Law Journal, 6(1), 302–316.
Weir, M. (2015). Pushing the envelope of proprietary interests: The nadir of the numerus clausus principle? Melbourne University Law Review, 39, 651–679. http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1774556/08-Weir.pdf
Wendehorst, C. (2022). Of elephants in the room and paper tigers: How to reconcile data protection and the data economy. In C. Lohsse, R. Schulze, & D. Staudenmayer (Eds.), Trading data in the digital economy: Legal concepts and tools (pp. 327–355).
Zambon, A. (2019). Property: A conceptual analysis. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 38, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.5208
Zimmerman, D. (1983). Requiem for a heavyweight: A farewell to Warren and Brandeis’s privacy tort. Cornell Law Review, 68(3), 292–367. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol68/iss3/1.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dirasat: Shari'a and Law Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
