DPA case 7285/183/18 – Complaint Upheld (Finland, 2022)

Complaint Upheld
DPA Tietosuojavaltuutetu8 June 2022Finland
final
Complaint Upheld

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 insurance company in Finland asked people applying for life or health insurance to sign a consent form to access their health information. The Finnish Data Protection Authority found that the company couldn't use this consent to collect sensitive health data because it didn't meet legal requirements. This decision highlights the importance of having a valid reason for processing sensitive personal information.

What happened

The insurance company sought consent to access applicants' health information directly from healthcare providers.

Who was affected

Individuals applying for life or health insurance whose health data was requested by the insurance company.

What the authority found

The Finnish DPA ruled that the insurance company lacked a valid legal basis for processing sensitive health data, violating GDPR rules.

Why this matters

This case shows that companies must have a clear legal reason to process sensitive health data. It serves as a reminder for businesses to ensure their data collection practices comply with privacy laws.

GDPR Articles Cited
Automatically processed
Art. 9 GDPR
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 25(2) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 7(GDPR)
Art. 9(GDPR)
Art. 25(2) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 6(1)(1) of the Finnish Data Protection Act (Tietosuojalaki)

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

An insurance company (the controller) asked data subjects who applied for life or health insurance to sign a general written consent form authorising the controller to obtain personal health information directly from their healthcare providers. The controller needed this data to determine the risk insurance at the application stage and to determine its liability when data subjects later claimed compensation. In some instances, the controller used that authorisation to request the entire medical record of the data subject for a specified period. The controller relied on the following grounds to process data subjects' health data: 1) the contractual necessity under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR; 2) a power of attorney granted in the authorisation form to request personal data on behalf of the data subject under Article 15 GDPR; and 3) [https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2018/20181050#L2P6 Article 6(1)(1) of the Finnish Data Protection Act (Tietosuojalaki)] which allows insurance companies to process the health data of the insured persons and claimants to determine the insurance company's liability. Upon a complaint from the healthcare provider, the Finnish DPA investigated this practice of the controller related to collecting the health information directly from medical units. The DPA held that the controller could not rely on the contractual necessity under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR because the health data belonged to special categories of personal data regulated by Article 9 GDPR, which does not contain contractual necessity as a sufficient legal basis. Further, the controller could not rely on a power of attorney either because the purpose of the right of access under Article 15 GDPR is, among other things, to check the legality of processing and the accuracy of data. Therefore, processing the data obtained under the right of access to determine the insurance company's own risk and liability would be contrary to the principle of purpose limitation under Article 5(1)(b) GDP

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 7285/183/18 in FI

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

Details

Decision Date

8 June 2022

Authority

DPA Tietosuojavaltuutetu

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-5079

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 7285/183/18 - Finland (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: