DPA case 2024-02-23 – Complaint Upheld (Lithuania, 2024)
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 communications service provider was told to stop sending unnecessary bill reminders to a customer. This case matters because it shows that companies must respect customer preferences and not overwhelm them with unwanted messages.
What happened
The provider continued to send bill payment reminders despite the customer requesting not to receive them.
Who was affected
The customer who received unwanted email reminders.
What the authority found
The authority ruled that the provider could not justify sending the reminders and violated the customer's rights.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of honoring customer requests regarding communication preferences. Companies should ensure they have proper systems in place to manage customer communications.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
A provider of electronic communications services ('controller) provided services to a customer ('data subject') under a contract. The data subject filed a complaint with the DPA and stated that he received the controller's bill payment reminders, which were sent to the applicant's email address on monthly basis, although the data subject paid the bills for services on time. The data subject indicated and provided evidence that he had repeatedly asked the controller not to send these reminders. Additionally, he was not provided with any opt-out option from receiving the unwanted emails. The controller indicated that reminders were sent to the data subject due to the necessity to perform the contract in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. Additionally, the controller presented arguments regarding the possibility of applying a legitimate interest condition as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, emphasizing data controller’s interest in receiving payment for services on time. The controller admitted that the data subject had always paid the bills by the dates specified in the controller's documents and reminders. The DPA held that the controller could not justify the processing of the data based on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. The processing of the data subject's email address for the purpose of sending reminders was not necessary in order to fulfill the contract concluded with the data subject. Furthermore, the DPA found that processing based on the controller's legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is in principle possible, however the controller must prove, in each case of refusal to honor an objection, that the reasons for processing outweigh the data subject's interests, rights, and freedoms. As a result, the controller's refusal to honor the data subject's objection to the processing of their e-mail address constituted a violation of Article 21(1) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject's complaint was accepted and the controller received instructions to satisfy the data
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 2024-02-23 in LT
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 2024-02-23 - Lithuania (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: