Systematization of legal facts in the field of information privacy: matrix classification

Objective: to systematize legal facts in the field of information privacy through matrix classification in order to identify the logic and patterns of legal relations dynamics in this area.

Methods: historical and legal analysis, classification of legal relations and legal facts, superposition of classifications in order to identify the point of their intersection, borrowing an interdisciplinary concept of the “extended Self” and integrating it into legal theory, abductive method, systematization, regulatory analysis, and analysis of judicial practice.

Results: the author proposed an extended concept of the object of personal right to information privacy. The work developed a matrix classification of legal facts using the example of an absolute civil-legal relationship of information privacy. The author substantiated the applied significance of the interdisciplinary “extended Self” concept and classified the spheres of life of a personal data subject. This deepens the understanding of such qualifying features of personal data as relevance and definability. Five presumptions in the field of information privacy were explained; the nature of the phenomenon of “experiencing” the information privacy rights was clarified. General patterns of dynamics of legal relations of information privacy were formulated.

Scientific novelty: the research combines the classical civilistic classification of legal facts with the classification of the spheres of life of the personal data subject and develops a matrix methodology for such classification. It reveals the legal significance of natural and acquired properties of personal data and the conceptual importance of the right to information privacy of the expected degree of personal data properties. The author proposes an expanded concept of the personal intangible good of information privacy and identifies the internal limits of its implementation. Five presumptions in the field of information privacy were formulated, in order to deepen the understanding of such qualifying features of personal data as relevance and definiteness.

Practical significance: the proposed analysis of legal facts can be used by legislators in the construction and interpretation of legal norms governing information privacy; by law enforcement agencies – in qualifying facts as legally significant and identifying hidden legal relationships based on known legal facts; and by courts – in resolving disputes about violations of information privacy rights. The elaboration of such qualifying features of personal data as relevance and definiteness helps to qualify data as personal and serves as an argument in relevant theoretical disputes.

1. Albogachiev, A. A., Gandaloev, R. B., & Galaeva, M. I. (2021). Formation of ideas about legal facts. Obrazovanie i pravo, 7. (In Russ.).

2. Altman, I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

3. Bakirova, D. M. (2023). Main approaches to defining the concept of “legal fact”. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 16(1), 29–33. (In Russ.).

4. Bartoli, C. (2022). Consumer self-concept and digitalization: What does this mean for brands? Italian Journal of Marketing, 2022(4), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-022-00059-8

5. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154

6. Bundin, M. V. (2017). Personal data in the system of classified information: Cand. Sci. (Law) thesis. (In Russ.).

7. Bundin, M. V. (2021). The principle of reliability in the regulation of personal data protection. Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika, 11(203). (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1337_2021_11_142

8. Chesnokova, L. V. (2024). Transformation of information privacy in the modern digital society. Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, 5(121). (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2024.5.17

9. Cushing, A. (2011). Self-extension and the desire to preserve digital possessions. In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801304

10. Dmitrik, N. A. (2025). History and theory of privacy. Moscow: Infotropik Media.

11. Finn, R. L., Wright, D., & Friedewald, M. (2013). Seven types of privacy. In S. Gutwirth et al. (Eds.), European data protection: Coming of age (pp. 3–32). Springer Science; Business Media Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_1

12. Gerashchenko, A. I. (2022). Dialectics of information privacy and information security. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 4(44), 51–72. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21128/2226-2059-2022-4-51-72

13. Grebennikov, V. V., Ponkin, I. V., & Redkina, A. I. (2017). The method of abduction as a method of scientific research. Obrazovanie i Pravo, 5, 8–12. (In Russ.).

14. Gruzdev, V. V. (2015). Legal condition of the personality as substational and functional legal phenomenon. Vestnik KGU, 21(2). (In Russ.).

15. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.

16. Jurcys, P., Donewald, C., Globocnik, J., & Lampinen, M. (2020). My Data, My Terms: A Proposal for Personal Data Use Licenses. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest, 33.

17. Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure theory of law. University of California Press*.

18. Kerckhove, D., & Almeida, C. M. (2013). What is a digital persona? Technoetic Arts, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1386/tear.11.3.277_1

19. Kostruba, A. V. (2013). To termination as right depriving jural fact and its action in right deprivation legal mechanism. Vestnik Bashkirskogo universiteta, 18(3), 924–927. (In Russ.).

20. Krotova, E. N. (2020). The concept of an unlawful act in the system of legal facts. Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 3(51), 190–194. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.36511/20785356-2020-3-190-194

21. Matveev, E. V. (2024). Corporate value of informational privacy. Zhurnal Suda po intellektualnym pravam, 1(43), 121–133. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2024_1_13

22. Merkl, A. (1931). Prolegomena to a theory of the hierarchy of law. In A. Verdross (Ed.), Society, state and law: Investigations into the pure theory of law (pp. 252–294). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-5991-0_9

23. Novikova, Yu. S. (2011). Facts-conditions in the classification of legal facts. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta, 4, 139–141. (In Russ.).

24. Rozhkova, M. A., & Glonina, V. N. (2020). Personal and non-personal data. In Law of digital economy, 16, 71–296. Moscow: Statut. (In Russ.).

25. Savigny, F. C. von. (2012). System of modern Roman law (Vol. 2). Moscow: Statut. (In Russ.).

26. Sebyakina, E. P. (2024). The theory of informational privacy law: classification of legal relationships. Zhurnal Suda po intellektualnym pravam, 2(44). (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2024_2_7

27. Titov, E. V. (2021). The concept and characteristics of a legal action in civil law. Prologue: Law Journal, 3(31). (In Russ.).

28. Vishnevskiy, A. F. (2013). Formation and development of the doctrine of juridical facts. In Law and democracy: collection of scientific works (Vol. 24). Minsk: BGU. (In Russ.).

29. Yachmenev, Yu. V. (2012). The doctrine of legal facts: the problems of industry approach. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 1(53), 75–80. (In Russ.).

30. Yakushev, P. A. (2003). Juridical acts and deeds as bases of legal relations. Vladimir: VSPU. (In Russ.).

31. Yarotskaya, M. V. (2017). The origins of the doctrine of legal (factual) composition in civil law. Pravo: istoriya i sovremennost, 1, 117–125. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17277/pravo.2017.01.pp.117-125