Artificial Intelligence law at Norway
🇳🇴 Artificial Intelligence Law in Norway
Although Norway is not an EU member, it is part of the European Economic Area (EEA).
This means that EU digital regulations apply in Norway once incorporated into the EEA, including:
GDPR – governs data used in AI systems
AI Act (EU) – currently being implemented; Norway is preparing alignment
NIS2 Directive – cybersecurity duties for essential digital services
Product Safety and Liability rules – relevant for autonomous systems
Norway also has strong national institutions regulating AI systems:
Datatilsynet (Norwegian Data Protection Authority) – leads AI surveillance and enforcement
The Norwegian Consumer Council (Forbrukerrådet) – investigates unfair algorithmic and digital practices
The Norwegian Board of Technology – provides national guidance on responsible AI
Sector authorities, e.g., finance, health, and transportation, oversee domain-specific algorithmic systems
The core areas regulated in Norway’s AI landscape include:
Automated decision-making affecting individuals
AI-driven surveillance, biometrics, and facial recognition
Profiling and algorithmic advertising
AI in policing and public sector decisions
Consumer protection involving digital and algorithmic manipulation
đź“š Important Norwegian AI-Related Cases (More Than Five, All Explained in Detail)
Below are seven well-documented cases either directly involving AI or involving automated/algorithmic systems governed by Norwegian law.
1. Datatilsynet vs. Meta (Facebook) – Ban on Behavioral Advertising (2023–2024)
Category: AI-driven profiling & targeted advertising
Status: Ban + daily fines enforced in Norway
What happened
Meta used AI-powered profiling algorithms to deliver behavioral ads based on tracking user activity across apps and websites. Datatilsynet ruled this processing illegal under GDPR, because users did not have proper consent and could not avoid profiling.
Outcome
Norway imposed a temporary ban on Meta’s behavioral ads.
Meta faced compulsory fines every day it continued the practice.
The case led Meta to change its ad model in Europe.
AI relevance
This case set a precedent showing that algorithmic profiling for advertising is subject to strict legality and transparency requirements.
2. Investigation into Replika AI Chatbot (2023)
Category: Emotional AI / Data protection / Children’s safety
Status: Investigation launched by Datatilsynet
What happened
Replika, a chatbot marketed as an “AI companion,” was found to:
Process sensitive psychological and emotional data
Collect intimate conversations
Be accessible without proper age verification
Display behavior that could be inappropriate for minors
Outcome
Datatilsynet began an assessment of whether Replika violated privacy and safety rules.
AI relevance
The case illustrates the risks of generative AI collecting emotional and intimate information, and the need for strong controls for children.
3. NAV Automated Benefits Decision System – Algorithmic Bias Concerns
Category: Automated public-sector decision-making
Status: Reported concerns & official evaluations
What happened
Norway’s welfare agency (NAV) uses algorithmic systems for:
Benefits calculations
Fraud detection
Case prioritization
Concerns were raised that the algorithms:
Might unintentionally discriminate
Were not transparent to individuals
Could automate decisions with serious social consequences
Outcome
Public scrutiny led to:
Reviews of algorithmic transparency
Demands for algorithmic impact assessments
Calls for clearer human oversight
AI relevance
This case is key for understanding Norway’s stance on government AI transparency, and the need for human-in-the-loop oversight.
4. Police Use of Facial Recognition – National Restrictions
Category: Biometrics & surveillance
Status: Prevented / restricted by regulators
What happened
Norwegian police explored the use of facial-recognition AI systems for:
Identifying suspects
Monitoring public spaces
Matching faces from video or images
Datatilsynet warned that:
Legal basis was insufficient
The technology posed severe privacy risks
Surveillance impact was disproportionate
Outcome
Norway restricted police use of facial recognition technologies until proper legislative frameworks exist.
AI relevance
Illustrates Norway’s strict approach to biometric AI, especially in law enforcement.
5. The “Grindr Case” – Algorithmic Ad Profiling and Sexual Orientation Data
Category: AI-driven profiling & sensitive data
Status: Fine imposed
What happened
Grindr, an app used by LGBTQ+ communities, shared sensitive user data (including inferred sexual orientation) with third-party advertisers through algorithmic tracking systems.
Outcome
Datatilsynet imposed a significant administrative fine.
The case emphasized that algorithmic inference of sexual orientation is considered sensitive data under Norwegian law.
AI relevance
A landmark case in how AI inference engines generate sensitive personal data, which requires explicit consent.
6. The Norwegian Consumer Council Report on Manipulative Algorithms (“Deceived by Design”)
Category: Dark patterns / AI-enhanced behavioral nudging
Status: Led to European regulatory action
What happened
The Council studied how major platforms used:
Manipulative interface design (“dark patterns”)
Algorithmic nudging
AI-driven personalization
to push users into accepting privacy-invasive settings.
Outcome
Triggered several regulatory responses across Europe
Pressured companies to adjust designs
Supported broader EU regulation (including the Digital Services Act)
AI relevance
Highlights how AI-enhanced persuasion and interface manipulation can violate consumer protection and privacy laws.
7. School Surveillance & AI Proctoring Systems – Investigations in Norway
Category: AI monitoring, biometrics in education
Status: Reviewed for legality
What happened
During COVID-19 and after, some schools considered or used AI systems for:
Remote exam monitoring
Facial analysis for cheating detection
Tracking student behavior
Datatilsynet raised concerns:
Biometric surveillance of minors was disproportionate
Students could not meaningfully consent
Risk of false positives and algorithmic bias
Outcome
Norwegian schools were advised to avoid or terminate such AI-powered proctoring systems until legal and ethical standards were met.
AI relevance
Demonstrates strict limits on AI surveillance in education, especially where minors are involved.
âś… Summary
Norway regulates AI primarily through:
GDPR (privacy and automated decisions)
Consumer protection law
Sector rules (health, police, finance)
Upcoming AI Act implementation
And Norway has handled multiple significant cases involving AI or algorithmic systems, including:
Meta profiling ban
Replika chatbot investigation
NAV welfare automation concerns
Police facial recognition restrictions
Grindr data profiling case
Manipulative algorithmic design report
AI proctoring and school surveillance cases
Each demonstrates how Norway enforces transparency, fairness, data protection, and safety in AI use.
RELATED Blog
comments