Enforcing jurisdiction
Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

DPA case 145/2022 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2022)

Complaint Upheld
Autorité de Protection des Données12 October 2022Belgium
final
Complaint Upheld

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A company sent a newsletter to a person who said they never signed up for it. The person wanted to unsubscribe and asked for their data to be erased, but the company asked for their ID first. The data protection authority ruled that the company shouldn't require ID to let someone exercise their rights.

What happened

A company sent a newsletter to a person who claimed they did not consent to receive it and later requested their data to be erased.

Who was affected

The person who received the unsolicited newsletter and wanted to unsubscribe and erase their data.

What the authority found

The data protection authority decided that the company violated GDPR by requiring ID to exercise rights like access and erasure.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights that companies cannot impose unnecessary identification requirements on users trying to exercise their rights. Businesses should ensure their practices align with GDPR to avoid similar complaints.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 17 GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 12(2) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(c) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 12(2) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(c) GDPR

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Art. 95, §1, 4° WOG

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

The controller sent out a newsletter as part of its marketing activity. The data subject in this case stated they had never signed up for it in the first place and wished to unsubscribe. The data subject exercised their right of access, which the controller complied with. After this, the data subject wanted to exercise their right of erasure. However, the controller asked for the identification card (ID) of the data subject in order to move on with the request. The controller's privacy policy stated that a written letter with proof of identity was required for exercising rights. The data subject requested information about how the controller received their personal data. The controller stated that the data subject consented to the processing of their personal data by taking part in a campaign. However, the data subject denied this and filed a complaint before the Belgian DPA. The DPA recalled that under Article 12(2) GDPR the controller was not allowed to refuse a data subject the possibility to exercise their rights unless the controller could prove that it was not able to identify the data subject. The DPA held that this was not the case, because the controller had complied with an access request of the data subject without requiring any further identification. The DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR by requiring an ID for exercising data subject rights, such as the right of access (Article 15 GDPR) and the right of erasure (Article 17 GDPR). The controller had to prevent processing too much personal data for the purpose of identifying a data subject, who wanted to exercise their rights. The DPA stated that the e-mail address of the data subject, used to send the direct marketing, was sufficient for identification purposes. The DPA stated that the controller should adjust his practises to prevent similar facts and possibly new complaints in the future. Moreover, the DPA warned the controller pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article

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 145/2022 in BE

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

Details

Decision Date

12 October 2022

Authority

Autorité de Protection des Données

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-5354

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 145/2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: