Law360 Canada (February 24, 2025, 9:40 AM EST) — In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence (AI), the race for dominance is no longer just about technological innovation. Let’s call it as it is! Why dance around the issue? It’s about geopolitics, ethics and legal frameworks. 

Part one of this series (see below for link) examined the geopolitical battle between China’s AI offensive move with the creation of DeepSeek and the West’s pushback. In part two, we continue the discussion with a look at DeepSeek and its Western rivals.

How does DeepSeek compare to Western AI platforms?

When it comes to data collection, DeepSeek is hardly an outlier. There’s nothing exceptional here. Western AI platforms like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard also collect extensive user data. In fact, ChatGPT allows them to access any information fed into it. Other AI services, like Anthropic’s Claude, or Perplexity, harvest a similar volume of data from users. So do social media apps like Facebook, Instagram and X. Quite often, these kinds of data collection practices have led to questions from regulators.

OpenAI: Collects user input, chat history, IP addresses and device information. Its privacy policy states that this data may be used to improve the model and for research purposes.

Google Bard: Collects user queries, location data and device information. Google’s privacy policy allows it to use this data for advertising and other commercial purposes.

Based on the potential for misuse, data regulators throughout Europe are looking into DeepSeek’s data policy collecting. Information requests submitted in Italy, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands and France seek to determine if the AI company’s acquisition of information violates Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by transferring personal data to China.

These worries have already resulted in the app being blocked in Italy while regulators probe the kind of data gathered, for what purpose, where it is stored, and whether it was used to train the company’s current AI model.

In an article written by Professor Uri Gal of the University of Sydney Business School in 2023, entitled “ChatGPT is a data privacy nightmare. If you’ve ever posted online, you ought to be concerned,” Professor Gal explains why the data gathering method used to train ChatGPT is problematic.

First, he notes that none of us was asked if OpenAI could utilize our data. This is an obvious infringement of privacy, especially when the data is sensitive and might be used to identify us, our family members or our location. Even when data is publicly available, its usage may violate what we term textual integrity. This is a crucial premise in legal arguments about privacy. It demands that individuals’ information not be disclosed outside of the context in which it was originally generated.

Furthermore, OpenAI provides no mechanisms for individuals to determine if the company saves their personal information or to request that it be destroyed. This is a legal right under GDPR, albeit it is still debated whether ChatGPT complies with GDPR criteria.

This “right to be forgotten” is another issue and is especially significant if the material is incorrect or misleading, which appears to be a common occurrence with ChatGPT. Finally, Gal argues that OpenAI did not pay for the data it obtained from the Internet. The individuals, website owners, and corporations who created it were not compensated. Note that OpenAI was recently valued at US$29 billion, more than doubling its value by 2021. In addition, OpenAI also has ChatGPT Plus, a premium membership plan that provides consumers with continuous access to the tool, faster response times, and priority access to new features. It was expected that that initiative also should realize profits in excess of $1 billion in 2024. 

None of this would have been possible without data, namely our data, which was obtained and utilized without our permission.

This is part two of a three-part series. Part one: Why single out DeepSeek? A Global Battle for Supremacy and Privacy.

Hodine Williams has over 20 years of experience in law, corporate governance and regulatory compliance across the legal, financial, hospitality and engineering sectors. A former prosecutor and expert in digital forensics, financial crimes and cyber law, he has advised corporations in Jamaica, Canada and the United Kingdom. Holding a master of laws in international business law from Osgoode Hall Law School, along with degrees in management and economics and law, Williams is also an educator, philanthropist and advocate for youth development and racialized communities. You can reach him at hodine.williams@gmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at Yvette.Trancoso-barrett@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.