Rydo Telecom – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2026)
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.
Rydo Telecom faced a legal dispute when a customer wanted access to their personal data after claiming they didn't receive two phones. The court ruled that the customer couldn't get reimbursement because they had made similar claims against another company. This case highlights the importance of clear communication and proper handling of access requests from customers.
What happened
A customer requested access to their personal data after disputing a phone delivery with Rydo Telecom.
Who was affected
The customer who claimed they did not receive two phones purchased from Rydo Telecom.
What the authority found
The court dismissed the customer's claim for reimbursement, stating they had not proven their case adequately.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the need for companies to handle access requests properly and to maintain clear records. Small businesses should ensure they have processes in place for responding to customer inquiries about their data.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
Rydo Telecom (the controller) is a telecommunications provider. In 2023, a data subject made an access request following a dispute with the controller on whether the data subject received two phones they had purchased from the controller. The data subject informed the controller in a letter that they intended to claim costs in the event that it did not respond to the request. The controller began investigating the data subject and found a similar claim against PostNL (one of the controller’s suppliers). According to PostNL, the data subject had made a similar claim that it had failed to deliver the two phones. The data subject later filed a case with the Amsterdam sub district court after the controller refused to respond to the request. The court dismissed the data subject’s claim for reimbursement of €2,908, on the grounds that the data subject had accused both companies of the same issue, and had left the hearing early. The data subject continued to reiterate their access request in 2024, and received a response from the controller in 2025. The controller stated that it no longer had data related to them beyond their email address in connection to the previous lawsuit. The data subject filed a case with the sub district court in 2026, who later referred the case to the court. The data subject requested the court to order the controller to provide full access to their data, subject to a penalty for noncompliance. The court first noted that the data subject had filed approximately 20 GDPR request cases with the sub district court within one year against different controllers. The court then assessed whether the data subject’s request was abusive within the meaning of Article 12(5) GDPR. This includes an objective and subjective element following CJEU case law (Brillen Rottler).See case C‑526/24 (Brillen Rottler), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0526 According to the CJEU, the subjective element requires the data subject to
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Rydo Telecom in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Rydo Telecom - Netherlands (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: