- Enforcing jurisdiction
- France · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Criteo – Court Ruling (France, 2026)
Criteo's appeal against a €40 million fine for GDPR violations was dismissed by the court. The ruling confirms that companies must obtain consent before processing user data. This case serves as a strong reminder for businesses about the importance of compliance with data protection laws.
What happened
Criteo was fined for processing user data without obtaining proper consent.
Who was affected
Users whose data was processed by Criteo for advertising purposes were affected.
What the authority found
The court upheld the data protection authority's findings that Criteo violated multiple GDPR articles related to user consent and data processing.
Why this matters
This case reinforces the necessity for companies to secure user consent before processing personal data. Businesses should review their data practices to ensure compliance with GDPR.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Review needed — 9 April 2026.
Processing notes: amount discrepancy, authority corrected, date discrepancy.
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
In 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) fined Criteo, an advertising company (the controller), €40,000,000 for breaches of the GDPR related to the processing of browsing data through cookies for the purpose of placing personalised advertisements. The decision followed complaints lodged by Privacy International and noyb. The DPA found violations of Article 26(1) GDPR and Article 26(2) GDPR based on the lack of a joint controllers' agreement with its partners, Article 7(1) GDPR by processing user data without consent, Article 7(3) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR by failing to erase data subjects’ personal data based on their requests, and Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 15 GDPR by failing to inform data subjects of the processing of their personal data. The controller appealed the decision asking for its annulment or, alternatively, the reduction of the fine. First, the Council of State (the court) held that the controller processed personal data since the identification of individuals would not be technically impossible based on the very large amount of information, sometimes very precise, collected and cross-referenced for a given identifier assigned to each data subject. Secondly, the court noted that the controller did not contest the DPA’s findings regarding the lack of a joint controllers' agreement. Thirdly, it found that the DPA’s conclusion regarding the violation of Article 7(1) GDPR did not disregard the principles of legality of offenses, presumption of innocence and exclusion of liability for others in criminal matters. Fourthly, it dismissed the argument that the contested decision was based on error of fact and assessment regarding the information provided to data subjects on the purposes for which their data were processed. Finally, the court noted that the controller could not rely on legitimate interest for continuing to process the data of data subjects who requested their erasure. Therefore, the court dismissed the controller’s appeal.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Criteo in FR
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
4 March 2026
Authority
Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-court-9867About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Criteo - France (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: