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

Court case 1 A 217/22 MD – Court Ruling (Germany, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA VGMagdeburg18 March 2024Germany
final
ePrivacy
Court Ruling

A German court upheld a decision against a company that used cold calling to advertise its services. The court ruled that the company could not process personal data for this purpose without consent. This case reinforces the legal boundaries around telemarketing and data protection.

What happened

The court ruled against a company for processing personal data for cold calling without consent.

Who was affected

Individuals who were contacted by the company for advertising purposes.

What the authority found

The court found that the company could not rely on legitimate interests to justify cold calling, as it violated data protection laws.

Why this matters

This ruling clarifies that companies must obtain explicit consent before contacting individuals for marketing. Businesses should review their marketing practices to ensure compliance with data protection laws.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(g) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(g) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityVG Magdeburg

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 11 April 2026.

Processing notes: 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

The controller runs a web portal that connects operators of holiday homes to potential guests by allowing the operators to place ads on the portal. To acquire new operators to present their holiday homes the controller advertises their service via phone. They were using the services of a call centre in Kosovo for this purpose. Call centre staff members would search for phone numbers of landlords and operators of hotels and holiday homes and called them. They presented the portal to them and tried to close a contract about a cost free test entry or a “premium entry” on the portal. During the call, the call centre staff asked for data related to the customer and their accommodation. Subsequently, the controller provided the new client with information and a confirmation via e-mail. Persons who said they did not want to be contacted anymore were blacklisted. Following 20 data protection complaints, the Saxony-Anhalt DPA (Landesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz Sachsen-Anhalt) got to know about the business practices of the controller and, in particular, that a client will receive more calls after opting for the cost-free test ad on the portal. The DPA then conducted an official hearing of the controller. After the hearing, the Saxony-Anhalt DPA ordered the controller under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR to refrain from the processing of phone numbers and other personal data for the purpose of advertisement if these phone numbers are related to an identifiable natural person. This order included an exception for cases in which the person had either consented to the processing of their data or concrete facts indicate that the person had a factual interest in an advertisement entry on the controller’s page and is awaiting the call or at least would react positively to the call. Furthermore, it ordered the controller under Article 58(2)(g) GDPR to delete all personal data that could not be processed anymore under the aforementioned order. In addition, the DPA ordered the controller under Article 58(1)(a) GDPR to demonstrate to the DPA the compliance with the orders by showing which measures were taken. In case of non-compliance the DPA threatened an administrative fine. The controller appealed this order before the Administrative Court Magdeburg (Verwaltungsgericht Magdeburg – VG Magdeburg). The court dismissed the controller’s appeal. The only possible legal ground for the processing of personal data in this case is Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. But in this case the processing cannot be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The court held that cold calling might fall out of the scope of application of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR because Article 13(3) of the Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) in conjunction with [https://dejure.org/gesetze/UWG/7.html#Abs2:Nr1 § 7(2)(1) German law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - UWG)] could be lex specialis. § 7(2)(1) UWG states that advertising by means of a telephone call made to a consumer without his or her prior express consent, or made to another market participant without at least the latter’s presumed consent constitutes an unacceptable nuisance to a market participant and is illegal. However, the court’s decision does not depend on this question since the processing of personal data in this case also fails the balancing test under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. This is due to the fact that the processing of phone numbers for cold calling purposes fails to match the criteria of § 7(2)(1) UWG which can be taken into consideration. The court dismissed the controller’s argument that German competition law and the GDPR had different purposes and therefore, the DPA should not enforce competition law through the application of Data protection law. The court argued that an overall view would lead to the conclusion that it the cold calling was a uniform process in a way that the processing of personal data has the purpose of illegal cold calling. Therefore, the controller cannot argue that the DPA was not competent to enforce competition law.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 1 A 217/22 MD in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

18 March 2024

Authority

DPA VGMagdeburg

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 1 A 217/22 MD - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: