Court case 6 C 3.23 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA OVGSaarlouis29 January 2025Germany
final
ePrivacy
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A dental practice contacted by a company for selling dental gold has won a ruling against unsolicited calls. The German data authority ordered the company to stop collecting personal information for advertising unless they get consent. This decision reinforces the importance of consent in marketing practices.

What happened

The company collected personal data from dental practices without consent for telemarketing purposes.

Who was affected

Dental practice owners whose contact information was collected and used for unsolicited advertising calls.

What the authority found

The German data authority ruled that the company must cease data collection and delete the information unless consent is obtained.

Why this matters

This ruling serves as a reminder for businesses that they must obtain consent before using personal data for marketing. It aligns with broader trends emphasizing user privacy and consent.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 95(GDPR)
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

S7 UWG
Decision AuthorityHigher Administrative Court
Reviewed AuthorityDPA
Source verified 14 April 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The controller purchases dental gold from dental practices. To do so, it collects the practice owner's first and last name, as well as the practice address and telephone number, from publicly accessible directories, such as the Yellow Pages. The controller uses the contact details stored in a database to contact the dental practices by telephone with the aim of determining whether the parties contacted are interested in selling precious metals to the controller. Following a dentist's report, the DPA ordered the controller to cease the collection, processing, and use of personal data of dental practice owners for the purpose of telephone advertising unless the data subject has given their consent or a business relationship with the data subject already exists. Furthermore, the DPA ordered the deletion of the data collected and stored for this purpose and instructed the controller to implement the ordered measures within two weeks of the order becoming final and to notify the DPA thereof. The controller applied to the DPA for annulment of the decision. As grounds, it essentially argued that her conduct was lawful under the GDPR, which had since entered into force, so that a new issuance of the order would not be possible. The DPA rejected the application, essentially stating that the legal situation had not changed in the controller's favor. The Administrative Court dismissed the controller's action seeking an order requiring the DPA to annul its decision. The Higher Administrative Court held that in the absence of consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, the admissibility of the controller's data processing for direct marketing purposes now depends on the applicability of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, which requires a comprehensive proportionality assessment and a balancing of the conflicting interests of the advertiser, on the one hand, and the recipient of the advertising, on the other. However, the requirements of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR are not met because the telephone adver

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 6 C 3.23 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

29 January 2025

Authority

DPA OVGSaarlouis

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 6 C 3.23 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: