Critics, including the Human Rights League and various healthcare advocacy groups, have expressed significant concerns regarding the decision to include patient data in an AI research program by default. The primary argument is that health data is among the most sensitive information an individual possesses, and its use for AI training—even when pseudonymized—carries inherent risks. There is a fear that once this data enters a commercial AI pipeline, the potential for re-identification or future misuse, such as for insurance or employment discrimination, cannot be entirely ruled out. Critics argue that such a sensitive shift in data usage should require explicit, informed consent rather than an opt-out process.
There is also skepticism regarding the company's marketing of European data sovereignty. While Doctolib promotes its European roots, critics point out that the platform has previously relied on infrastructure from major US cloud providers, raising questions about whether data truly remains insulated from foreign legal reach. The lack of transparency in how these AI models are trained and the potential for commercialization of patient information have fueled distrust among some users and medical practitioners. For these stakeholders, the promise of 'improved care' does not justify the potential erosion of patient privacy.
Ultimately, the concern is that the convenience of a booking platform is being leveraged to build a massive, valuable dataset for AI development without the full, proactive buy-in of the patients whose lives are being analyzed. Critics maintain that the burden should be on the company to prove that such data usage is absolutely necessary and that it is protected against all possible future vulnerabilities. They urge patients to remain vigilant and exercise their right to opt out to maintain control over their most private medical records.