Controller (subsidiary of parent company) – Court Ruling (Austria, 2026)

Court Ruling
DPA BVwG14 April 2026Austria
final
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.

An Austrian court ruled that a parent company was not liable for GDPR violations related to its subsidiary's customer loyalty program. This is important because it clarifies how companies can be held responsible for data processing activities.

What happened

The court annulled a fine against the parent company for its subsidiary's handling of personal data.

Who was affected

Customers registered in the loyalty program managed by the subsidiary.

What the authority found

The court decided that the parent company did not qualify as a controller since it did not influence the data processing activities.

Why this matters

This case sets a precedent for how companies are viewed in terms of responsibility for data processing. It highlights the need for clear roles and responsibilities in data management.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

View original scraped data
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 26(1) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityVwGH
Reviewed AuthorityBVwG (Austria)
Source verified 17 May 2026
articles corrected
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The parent company operated a customer loyalty programme through its subsidiary, the controller, starting 2 May 2019. The controller managed the operational business and processed personal data of registered customers, including profiling activities based on customer data. The controller designed the profiling consent forms, determined the data processing activities, prepared the privacy documentation, implemented technical and organisational measures, and established GDPR compliance processes. The parent company only financed the controller. On 12 October 2021, the Austrian DPA fined the parent company €8,000,000. The DPA considered the parent company and the subsidiary to be joint controllers under Article 26 GDPR. It held that the consent forms used for profiling did not meet the requirements for valid consent under Article 4(11) and Article 7 GDPR. It further held that the profiling lacked a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR because the consent was invalid. The parent company appealed. The Federal Administrative Court annulled the fine and terminated the proceedings. The DPA then appealed to the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court. First, the court referred to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the concept of controller under Article 4(7) GDPR and joint controllership under Article 26 GDPR. The court noted that a party qualifies as a controller only if it actually influences the purposes and means of the relevant processing operations. Merely establishing and financing a subsidiary did not automatically create joint controllership, as the parent company didn't exercise actual influence over the specific processing activities. As a result, the parent company was not a joint controller under Article 26 GDPR. Second, the court also rejected the DPA’s reliance on CJEU judgments such as Jehovan todistajat, Fashion ID and others, as those cases involved direct influence over concrete processing operations, which was absent here.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Controller (subsidiary of parent company) in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

14 April 2026

Authority

DPA BVwG

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Controller (subsidiary of parent company) - Austria (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: