DPA case 71/2025 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2025)
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 complaint was upheld after a consumer faced difficulties submitting a complaint to a company due to restrictive website policies. The authority found that requiring an account to file a complaint led to unnecessary data processing. This case serves as a reminder for companies to simplify complaint processes.
What happened
A company required customers to create an account to submit complaints, limiting access to other options.
Who was affected
Consumers trying to submit complaints to the company.
What the authority found
The authority ruled that the company's account requirement for complaints likely led to unnecessary data processing.
Why this matters
This decision highlights the need for companies to provide clear and accessible complaint options without unnecessary barriers. Businesses should ensure their processes are user-friendly to avoid potential compliance issues.
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.
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
A consumer (the data subject) wanted to submit a complaint to a company (the controller). The controller's website stated that complaints could only be filed via the website and that an account with the company was needed to file a complaint. Even though it was possible to file a complaint by phone or letter, the website did not mention those options. The consumer lodged a complaint to the Finnish DPA. In August 2024, the complaint was transmitted from the Finnish DPA to the Belgian DPA- the supervisory authority under Article 60 GDPR. The DPA pointed out that, according to a joint reading of Article 5(1)(c) and 25 GDPR, the controller must comply with the principles of data protection, especially minimization, and that this compliance must begin when the means are determined and continue during data processing (data protection by design and by default). The DPA also reminded that, according to the principle of minimization, only data that is adequate, relevant and necessary for the purpose for which it is to be used may be processed. With regard to these principles, the DPA considered that the obligation to create an account to lodge a complaint led to unnecessary data processing, regarding the purpose pursued (the appropriate processing of a consumer’s complaint). Even though other options where available to submit the complaint, the DPA highlighted that a company can’t reasonably expect consumers to know them if its website only indicates clearly an obligation to create an account to submit it online. During the proceedings, the company modified its website by adding a “guest” option to file a complaint without creating an account. Regarding to these evolutions, the DPA only warned the company that it may have breached Articles 5(1)(c) and 25 GDPR. The decision was issued under Article 95 LCA, which means it is not a decision on the merits. The data subject may request a decision on the merits, in accordance with Article 100 LCA.
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 71/2025 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 71/2025 - Belgium (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: