Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)
A German court ruled that eprimo's inbox advertising was unlawful because it did not get users' consent before displaying ads in their email inboxes. This decision is significant as it reinforces the requirement for consent in digital marketing practices.
What happened
eprimo displayed advertisements in users' email inboxes without obtaining prior consent.
Who was affected
Email users who received unsolicited advertisements were affected.
What the authority found
The court ruled that eprimo's actions violated the ePrivacy Directive, which requires consent for such marketing.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent that companies must obtain consent before sending marketing communications, highlighting the importance of user privacy in digital advertising.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
eprimo, a German electricity supplier, distributed advertisements consisting of displaying banners in the email inboxes of the T-Online free email service. When users opened their inbox, those advertisements were shown to them at random, indistinguishable from the list of emails in the users' inbox except for the fact that the date was replaced by the word ‘Anzeige’ (advertisement), no sender was mentioned and the text appeared against a grey background. When clicking on what looked like an email at first glance, the users were shown that advertisement. This procedure is known as inbox advertising. Städtische Werke Lauf a.d Pegnitz GmbH (‘StWL’) is a competitor of eprimo and considered eprimo's inbox advertising unlawful under the rules of unfair competition because there was no prior consent by the users. StWL, after at first succeeding with an action before the Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth, lost the case in the second instance before the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg. When it appealed at the BGH, it referred the subject to the CJEU. In particular, it asked whether inbox advertising was compatible with the ePrivacy Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive which require consent for electronic mail that is sent to users for the purposes of direct marketing, prohibiting unsolicited communications. The CJEU decided that inbox advertisements require prior consent. The BGH agreed with the StWL and overturned the Regional Court's decision, taking into consideration the CJEU's ruling. It held that eprimo had violated competition law and had to compensate StWL. According to the court, pursuant to § 7(2)(3) Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - UWG), any direct marketing using the email inbox of the user requires prior consent. Such consent had not been obtained by eprimo. It assumed that it is irrelevant whether potential users of the free email service had been made aware of the use of parts of the internet pa
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Violations (2)
Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Third-party tracking cookies or scripts are loaded without obtaining prior user consent.
Art. 13, 14 GDPR
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Similar Cases
Enforcement actions with similar violations
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: