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

DPA case Nr. 3R-219 (2.13-1.E) – Complaint Upheld (Lithuania, 2026)

Complaint Upheld
Valstybine duomenu apsaugos inspekcija6 February 2026Lithuania
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 family faced issues with a travel agency that mishandled their personal data during a trip booking. The Lithuanian Data Protection Authority ruled that the agency failed to protect the family's information and did not provide proper consent options for marketing emails.

What happened

The travel agency sent marketing emails without valid consent and mishandled personal data related to a trip booking.

Who was affected

A family who booked a trip through the travel agency and had their personal data mishandled.

What the authority found

The Lithuanian Data Protection Authority upheld the family's complaint, finding that the agency violated GDPR by not ensuring proper consent and data accuracy.

Why this matters

This case emphasizes the importance of obtaining clear consent for marketing communications and ensuring that personal data is accurate, which is essential for maintaining customer trust.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 12 GDPR
Art. 13 GDPR
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(d) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 12(GDPR)
Art. 13(GDPR)
Art. 15(GDPR)

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Lithuanian law on electronic communications

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 data subjects purchased a package trip for three adults and two children through the website of the controller, a travel agency. During the booking process and subsequent correspondence, errors arose concerning the children’s dates of birth, which were reflected in the contract and later in the travel documents. Although some corrections were made by hand in the contract and passport copies were eventually provided, the inaccurate data were not rectified in time, and the trip ultimately did not take place. Following this, the data subjects lodged a complaint with the DPA. They argued that the company had sent post-trip feedback emails without valid consent or an opt-out option, unlawfully processed and retained copies of travelers’ passports without demonstrating necessity or proportionality, failed to ensure the accuracy of personal data despite having access to corrected information, and acted without sufficient transparency by sending a third party’s privacy policy without explanation and by allegedly mishandling information about the recording of a telephone call. In addition, one data subject claimed that the response to an access request under Article 15 GDPR was incomplete and misleading, while another data subject alleged that their access request had not been answered at all. The company argued that customers were contractually responsible for the accuracy of the data they provided, that passport copies were necessary to verify document validity for the trip, and that feedback emails were lawfully sent to existing customers under national electronic communications law. It also argued that the access request had been answered within the statutory time limit. The DPA upheld the complaint for the most part. It first concluded that the feedback emails sent to the data subjects constituted direct marketing under Lithuanian law. While such messages may be sent to existing customers, the company had failed to provide a clear and easily exercisable option to

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 Nr. 3R-219 (2.13-1.E) in LT

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

Details

Decision Date

6 February 2026

Authority

Valstybine duomenu apsaugos inspekcija

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-9816

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 Nr. 3R-219 (2.13-1.E) - Lithuania (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: