StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH – CJEU Judgment (Germany, 2021)
The Court of Justice ruled that a company’s inbox advertising was illegal because it didn't get users' consent first. This ruling matters because it reinforces the need for companies to ask for permission before sending marketing messages. It sets a clear standard for how businesses should handle user privacy in advertising.
What happened
eprimo's inbox advertising was deemed unlawful because it was shown to users without their consent.
Who was affected
Users of the T-Online email service who received unsolicited advertisements in their inbox.
What the authority found
The Court held that inbox advertising requires prior consent under the ePrivacy Directive.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for how companies must approach consent in digital marketing. Businesses should ensure they have clear consent mechanisms in place to avoid legal issues.
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 German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH), the BGH 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 held that such inbox advertising is unlawful without prior consent according to the ePrivacy Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. First, the CJEU clarified that the process of inbox advertisements constitutes the use of communications for the purposes of direct marketing regardless of the recipients being chosen at random. Then, it stated that the use of e-mails is allowed for the purposes of direct marketing only if the the recipient has given free, specific and informed consent. It emphasized the fact that such advertising messages do not need to reach any threshold
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
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 StWL 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
Judgment Date
1 January 2021
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-4099About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: