Journal of Experimental Agriculture International

Digital agriculture converts observations of fields, livestock, machinery, transactions and environmental conditions into reusable information that can support farm decisions, service provision and research. Yet the economic benefits of these data do not automatically accrue to the people and organisations that generate them. This critical narrative review examines how farm data acquire economic value, how control is allocated through law, contracts and technical infrastructure, and why privacy, platform dependence and unequal bargaining power complicate ostensibly beneficial data sharing. Peer-reviewed research in agricultural economics, information systems, rural sociology, law and data governance was interpreted alongside authoritative policy instruments, with literature considered to 4 September 2026. The synthesis distinguishes data ownership claims from enforceable rights to access, authorise reuse, transfer, contest and benefit from data, and separates potential data value from demonstrated farm-level returns. Economic theory identifies the non-rival and complementary properties of data, whereas farm surveys and contractual analyses reveal differentiated sharing preferences, uncertain benefit distribution and substantial transparency problems. Platforms can lower transaction and analytical costs while simultaneously accumulating informational advantages, limiting interoperability and strengthening dependence on proprietary services. Privacy and data justice extend beyond personal identifiers to encompass commercial confidentiality, group-level inference and the distribution of risks to tenants, workers and smaller farms. Emerging data spaces, contractual codes and European data legislation offer partial governance responses, but their agricultural implementation and distributive effects remain inadequately evaluated. The review proposes a rights-and-value framework linking data provenance, effective control, market structure and verifiable outcomes. Evidence is strongest for the existence of governance concerns and uneven capabilities, more limited for the effects of particular governance arrangements, and weakest for claims that data monetisation delivers equitable, durable farm income. Research and policy should therefore prioritise measurable value sharing, independent audits, usable portability, and designs that accommodate diverse farming systems rather than treating data volume or exchange as an end in itself.