Clearview AI: The Gaps Between Claims and Reality

Clearview AI: The Gaps Between Claims and Reality

Following on from our previous article on Clearview AI..

Clearview AI, is seemingly a company that is far from transparent. Some are even believed to be linked to the lower echelons of Mossad and Israeli intelligence.

As of the most recent available information (2025–2026), the leadership of Clearview AI is as follows:

CEO(s)

Hal Lambert – Co-CEO (appointed after 2024)

Richard Schwartz – Co-CEO

Former CEO:

Hoan Ton-That – Co-founder and former CEO (resigned in 2024, remains involved as a board member) 

Directors / Board & Advisory Members

Clearview AI does not publicly list a traditional corporate board in detail, but it does disclose an advisory board, which functions similarly in guiding the company.

Notable members include:

• Raymond Kelly

• Richard Clarke

• Rudy Washington

• Floyd Abrams

• Lee Wolosky

• Steve K. Francis

Additional advisory members added later include intelligence and military figures such as:

•Aaron Prupas

• John T. Lewis

• Mark R. Jacobson

Who is Hoan Ton-That?

• Australian-born tech entrepreneur and co-founder

• Built Clearview’s core idea: scraping billions of images from the internet

• Previously worked on smaller apps and projects before Clearview

• Stepped down as CEO in 2024 but remains influential as a board member

His role is central: he designed the controversial data-scraping model that defines the company.

Who is Richard Schwartz?

• Co-founder and now Co-CEO

• Background in legal and business strategy

• Helped structure the company and navigates the legal challenges

Who is Hal Lambert?

• Co-CEO (appointed 2025)

• Investment manager and political fundraiser

• Early investor in Clearview

• Known for ties to conservative political fundraising in the U.S.

Advisory Board (Key Influencers)

Clearview’s advisory board is unusually powerful—and controversial—because of its deep ties to government, policing, and intelligence. 

Raymond Kelly

• Former New York City Police Commissioner (longest-serving)

• Career law enforcement leader and former Marine officer

Richard Clarke

• Former White House counterterrorism “czar”

• Served under multiple U.S. presidents

• Led U.S. response coordination during 9/11 

Rudy Washington

• Former Deputy Mayor of New York City

• Oversaw major city agencies and helped coordinate early 9/11 response 

Floyd Abrams

• One of the most prominent free speech lawyers in the U.S.

• Defended The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case 

Lee Wolosky

• Former U.S. diplomat and national security official

• Worked under multiple presidents

Now a senior lawyer at Jenner & Block 

Steve K. Francis

• Former senior official in U.S. Homeland Security Investigations 

What This Mix of People Tells You

Clearview AI is not a typical tech startup. Its leadership reveals its strategy:

1. Enforcement First

Police commissioners and security officials dominate the advisory board

Aligns with its core customers: police and government agencies

2. Legal Defense is Central

High-profile constitutional lawyers help defend:

• Data scraping

• First Amendment arguments

3. National Security Positioning

Advisors from intelligence and counterterrorism

Frames the product as a security tool, not just tech

This background helps to explain:

Why Clearview aggressively defends its practices

Why it continues operating despite global fines

Why it markets itself as a crime-fighting tool rather than a consumer product

Clearview isn’t just built by engineers—it’s shaped by police, lawyers, and intelligence officials, which heavily influences both its technology and its controversies.

Clearview must be reputable then..?

Here’s a clear, up-to-date overview of the controversies, legal battles, and global regulatory pushback surrounding Clearview AI—this is where the company has attracted the most scrutiny.

Core Controversy: How Clearview AI Works

At the heart of nearly every legal case is one practice:

• Clearview scraped billions of images from social media and websites

• It built a massive facial recognition database without user consent

• Users (mainly law enforcement) can upload a photo and identify a person

Regulators argue this violates privacy laws because biometric data is highly sensitive.

Major Legal Cases & Fines

Europe: Heavy Fines and Bans

European regulators have been the most aggressive.

Netherlands fined Clearview €30.5 million for illegal biometric data use (� The Library of Congress)

Italy and Greece each fined €20 million (� Privacy International)

France and Austria also took enforcement action (� European Data Protection Board)

Multiple authorities concluded:

• Data collection was unlawful

• Individuals were not informed or consented

• Clearview must delete EU citizens’ data

• Some regulators have even explored personal liability for executives

United Kingdom: Ongoing Legal Battle

UK regulator fined Clearview £7.5 million in 2022 (� Burges Salmon)

Ordered deletion of UK residents’ data (� Pinsent Masons)

What happened next:

Clearview successfully appealed initially (2023)

But in 2025, a higher tribunal overturned that, saying UK law does apply (� RPC)

This case is still evolving and is considered a landmark test of cross-border data laws.

United States: Lawsuits & Settlement

Clearview has faced multiple lawsuits under biometric privacy laws.

A major case in Illinois led to a $51.75 million settlement (� Regulatory Oversight)

Unusually:

Instead of cash payouts, plaintiffs may receive equity in the company

The case highlights how difficult it is to regulate emerging tech

Criminal Complaint (Austria – 2025)

In a significant escalation:

• Privacy group NOYB filed a criminal complaint

• Executives could potentially face personal liability or jail time

• Clearview AI faces criminal complaint in Austria for suspected privacy violations

This reflects growing frustration that:

• Fines alone haven’t stopped the company’s practices

• Enforcement across borders is difficult

The Bigger Issue: Enforcement Gaps

Despite massive fines:

• Some regulators say no fines have actually been collected (� urmconsulting.com)

• Clearview argues it operates outside EU/UK jurisdiction

• It has no physical presence in many regions pursuing it

This creates a major loophole: 👉 Laws exist, but enforcement is inconsistent globally.

Key Ethical Concerns

Across all cases, the same concerns keep coming up:

1. Lack of Consent

People’s faces were used without permission.

2. Mass Surveillance Risk

A database of billions of faces enables:

Real-time identification

Tracking individuals across platforms

3. Chilling Effect

Critics argue it could:

Discourage protest or free expression

Enable authoritarian-style monitoring

Clearview AI’s Defense

The company argues:

• Its technology is used only by law enforcement

• It helps solve crimes and identify suspects

• Data is collected from publicly available sources

Courts and regulators remain divided on whether that justifies the scale of data collection.

So far, the global total of fines issued to Clearview AI depends slightly on how you count (e.g., whether to include disputed or uncollected penalties), but the most widely cited, evidence-based figure is:

✅ Around €95 million – €110 million (≈ $100M–$120M USD)

(This range comes from combining major *confirmed* penalties)

⚠️ Important Context

1. Most fines have NOT been paid

Regulators themselves acknowledge that little or none of the money has been collected (� urmconsulting.com)

2. Cross-border enforcement is weak

Clearview argues it is outside EU/UK jurisdiction, making enforcement difficult

3. Additional penalties possible

Some fines include ongoing penalties for non-compliance, which could increase totals further

Confirmed fines issued: ~€95M–€110M

Actually collected: likely close to €0 so far (based on regulator statements)

Bottom Line

Clearview AI sits at the center of a global clash between:

Privacy rights (GDPR, biometric laws)

vs

Security and law enforcement capabilities

Key takeaway:

It’s not just about this roguish controversial company—it’s a test case for how far facial recognition can go before it crosses legal and ethical lines.