Why were they in an imbalanced situation? In this particular case, I believe it was a trial. So parents could have withheld consent with no negative consequence

Why were they in an imbalanced situation? In this particular case, I believe it was a trial. So parents could have withheld consent with no negative consequences as far as I can tell. I realize that this particular situation is about facial recognition, but I was trying to point out that this ruling changes the game for everything, basically creating a situation where the only way for a data controller to minimize legal risk would be to get prior authorization from the data authority. That is a problematic.