a private individual (plaintiff) – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA BGH28 January 2025Germany
final
ePrivacy
Court Ruling

A German court ruled that a commercial entity unlawfully processed a user's personal data for marketing without responding to their objections. This matters because it emphasizes the importance of respecting users' rights to control their data. Companies need to respond to user requests regarding their data.

What happened

A private individual objected to the processing of their personal data for marketing, but the company did not respond.

Who was affected

The individual whose personal data was used for marketing purposes was affected.

What the authority found

The court stated that the company failed to address the user's objection, which violated GDPR rules.

Why this matters

This case reinforces that businesses must respect users' rights and respond to their data concerns. It serves as a reminder for companies to have clear communication channels for data-related inquiries.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(d) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG)
Decision AuthorityBGH
Source verified 9 April 2026
articles corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject, a private individual, objected to the controller’s processing of their personal data. The controller, a commercial entity, had collected and processed the data subject’s personal data for marketing and profiling purposes. The data subject sent an email to the controller objecting to such a “processing or use” of his data to which the controller failed to respond The data subject claimed that the processing was unlawful and requested its cessation under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The data subject claimed that, when he receives messages of this nature, it gives rise to an uneasy feeling that personal data has been disclosed to unauthorized persons, precisely because the data was unlawfully used. The data subject had to deal with unwanted advertising and the origin of the data, creating a quite stressful impression of loss of control. Moreover, the controller initially did not respond after the infringement, which, from the data subject’s perspective, constituted yet another disregard of him. The controller argued that its processing was justified under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legitimate interest. The lower courts had differing views on whether the processing met GDPR standards. The court stated, that a claim for non-material damages cannot be denied on the grounds that the harm does not exceed a certain severity threshold. However the court found, that the data subject did not sufficiently demonstrate that he suffered non-material damage at all. The court stated that the CJEU had clarified in several judgements that a mere infringement of the provisions of the GDPR is not sufficient to establish a claim for damages; rather, as an independent prerequisite, actual damage (caused by the infringement) must also be demonstrated by the data subject. The court elaborated that once the loss of control is established this itself constitutes the non-material damage, and there is no need for further distinct or additional concerns or anxieties on the

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for a private individual (plaintiff) in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

28 January 2025

Authority

DPA BGH

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. a private individual (plaintiff) - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: