Enforcing jurisdiction
Italy · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Maggioli S.p.A. – Complaint Upheld (Italy, 2023)

Complaint Upheld
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali8 February 2023Italy
final
ePrivacy
Complaint Upheld

The Italian DPA upheld a complaint against Maggioli S.p.A. for mismanaging cookie consent on its website. The company failed to provide a clear reject option and used pre-ticked boxes, which misled users about their consent choices. This decision reinforces the importance of proper consent mechanisms for online tracking.

What happened

Maggioli S.p.A. was found to have violated GDPR by not providing a reject button and using pre-ticked boxes for cookie consent.

Who was affected

Users of Maggioli S.p.A.'s website who were subjected to improper cookie consent practices.

What the authority found

The Italian DPA ruled that Maggioli S.p.A. breached multiple GDPR articles related to user consent and transparency regarding cookies.

Why this matters

This case highlights the necessity for companies to implement clear and compliant cookie consent mechanisms. Businesses should ensure they provide users with straightforward options regarding their data.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5 GDPR
Art. 7 GDPR
Art. 12 GDPR
Art. 13 GDPR
Art. 24 GDPR
Art. 25 GDPR
Art. 28 GDPR
Art. 4(11) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(11) GDPR
Art. 5(GDPR)
Art. 7(GDPR)
Art. 12(GDPR)
Art. 13(GDPR)
Art. 24(GDPR)
Art. 25(GDPR)
Art. 28(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 13 April 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

In August 2021, noyb (European Centre for Digital Rights) represented data subjects in filing several cookie mass complaints against Maggioli S.p.A. (controller) concerning its use of cookies and other tracking tools. The complaint alleged several violations across a number of the controller’s webpages, including the absence of a reject button at the first layer of the cookie banner, the use of pre-ticked boxes at the second layer and the improper reliance on legitimate interest as a legal basis for processing via cookies. The Italian DPA (Garante) carried out an investigation. During its investigation, it noted that the controller contracted with OneTrust (processor), a service that classified cookies and reported them in the controller’s cookie banner and cookie policy. Notably, only the processor could directly modify the cookie banner and cookie policy. The Garante also observed that the controller used only technical, non-tracking cookies. The processor, however, had erroneously attributed third parties’ tracking cookies that were on the controller’s webpage to the controller. On 30 May 2023, the Garante notified the controller of the alleged violations and that it was initiating the procedure pursuant to Article 166(5) of the Code on Protection of Personal Data. On 29 June 2023, the controller replied with a defensive brief. It noted that, upon discovering the processor’s erroneous cookie categorizations, the controller requested that the error be corrected. When the processor failed to do so in breach of their contract, the controller withdrew from the contract and entered into an agreement with a new supplier to alter the cookie banner. The controller also argued that the failure to inform users about the meaning of the X had not resulted in any violation because the controller only used technical non-tracking cookies. The Garante found that the controller’s conduct breached Articles 4(11), 5, 7, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 28 GDPR. It focused on three core issues with the controller’s processing. First, the controller failed to indicate the meaning of the command marked by the ‘X’ graphic in the cookie banner. The Garante considered this a violation of Articles 5(1)(a), 12 and 13 GDPR because it did not provide data subjects the fullest possible awareness regarding the processing of their personal data and choices they are entitled to make under the law. Second, the Garante found that the controller violated Articles 4(11) and 7 GDPR by erroneously citing legitimate interest as its legal basis for processing via cookies when such processing requires consent as a legal basis. The Garante noted, however, that the controller only actually relied on legitimate interest as a legal basis for its own use of cookies, which were technical and non-tracking. As technical cookies do not require user consent, the Garante found that despite qualifying the incorrect legal basis in the cookie banner, its own processing in fact complied with rules and did not harm data subjects. Nonetheless, the erroneous naming of legitimate interest as the legal basis in the cookie banner was unlawful under Articles 5(1)(a), 12 and 13 GDPR because it misled consumers. Finally, the Garante noted that the relationship between the controller and processor, and namely the controller’s inability to modify the cookie banner and cookie policy, resulted in violations of Articles 24, 25 and 28 GDPR. It emphasized that Articles 24and 25 GDPR impose a responsibility on the controller to oversee processing and guarantee that processor activities comply with the GDPR. In light of these violations, the Garante issued a warning, deciding not to impose a fine. It took into account the controller’s changes to banners following receipt of noyb’s complaints, lack of harm to users’ data since the controller itself only used technical cookies, lack of fraudulent intent, and withdrawal from the contract with its supplier after it failed to comply with the controller’s requests, cooperation with the Garante, and the lack of further complaints.

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for Maggioli S.p.A. in IT

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

8 February 2023

Authority

Garante per la protezione dei dati personali

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-7766

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Maggioli S.p.A. - Italy (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: