Court case HelHO:2026:8 – Court Ruling (Finland, 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.
A Finnish court decided that a company could not access personal information about individuals who applied for a TV show, despite claiming it was for journalistic purposes. This is important because it clarifies that not all background checks can be justified under journalism. Companies should be careful when claiming journalistic exemptions to access personal data.
What happened
A company sought access to personal information about individuals applying for an entertainment program but was denied by the court.
Who was affected
Individuals who applied to be cast in an entertainment program and whose backgrounds were being investigated.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the company's request was not for journalistic purposes and denied access to the information.
Why this matters
This case sets a precedent that companies must clearly justify their reasons for accessing personal data, especially when claiming journalistic intent.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
A company (A) requested information from the District Court of Eastern Uusimaa (Itä-Uudenmaan käräjäoikeus; the controller) regarding pending and closed criminal matters involving 39 individuals who applied to be cast in an entertainment program (the data subjects). The company claimed the purpose of the request was to investigate the data subjects' backgrounds, which in turn constituted processing for exclusively journalistic purposes within the meaning of [https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/2018/1050 Section 27 of the Finnish Data Protection Act]. This national provision contains exemptions from certain GDPR provisions allowed by Article 85(2) GDPR. The district court denied the request in August 2025 and held that the information was in fact requested to investigate the backgrounds of individuals who had applied for the entertainment program for the purpose of making casting decisions, rather than for journalistic purposes as A claimed. A subsequently appealed the case to the Helsinki Court of Appeal and demanded that the controller be ordered to disclose the information specified in the information request aiming at investigating the applicants' backgrounds. A argued that a journalistic purpose may also encompass editorial work related to the preparation of journalistic content. In this case, researching the backgrounds of applicants and selecting participants were part of the journalistic process. In addition, a media company (B) claimed before the court of appeals that it should be given the right to intervene in the proceedings as A served as a subcontractor for B in gathering information for the production of the entertainment program. First, the court held that B had no right to intervene in the matter concerning its subcontractor's request for information. As the case concerned a request for information made by B's subcontractor and not B's own right to information, the matter could not be considered to concern B's rights as required under national la
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case HelHO:2026:8 in FI
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case HelHO:2026:8 - Finland (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: