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

DBA – Dismissed (Denmark, 2022)

Dismissed
Datatilsynet (Denmark)31 January 2022Denmark
final
Dismissed

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.

Denmark's data protection authority dismissed a complaint against DBA for refusing to delete a user's data. The platform argued it needed to keep the data to prevent fraud. This case shows that companies can retain data if they have valid reasons, but users should know their rights.

What happened

DBA refused to delete a user's personal data, claiming it was necessary for fraud prevention.

Who was affected

A user with a blocked account on DBA was affected by the refusal to delete their data.

What the authority found

The authority found that DBA had a valid reason to retain the user's data to prevent fraud.

Why this matters

This decision clarifies that companies can keep data for legitimate reasons, but users should be aware of their rights regarding data deletion requests.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 21(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 21(1) GDPR

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

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 17 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected.

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 is Den Blå Avis' (DBA), an online platform for second hand goods. The data subject has a blocked user account on the platform and requested the controller to erase his personal data pursuant to Article 17 GDPR. The controller refused to comply because it had received three independent complaints from buyers regarding the data subject. Hence, in order to prevent fraud, the controller claimed it needed to retain the personal data (the blocked account) in order to identify any newly created profiles by the data subject, pursuant to Article 6(1)(d) GDPR. Moreover, the controller stated there was no other way to achieve this objective of fraud prevention. The data subject filed a complaint with the Danish DPA (Datatilsynet). The DPA rejected the complaint. First, the DPA considered that the controller blocked the data subject’s account because of several complaints, and noted that the controller did this on the basis of Article 6(1)(f), and not Article 6(1)(d) GDPR, since the controller balanced the interests. However, the DPA also noted that there is no basis to disregard the controller’s assessment that their interests (fraud prevention) outweigh the data subject’s interests. Second, the DPA considered that the data subject may object to the controller’s processing, but that the data subject did not bring forward any reasons that would justify the objection pursuant to Article 21(1) GDPR. Hence, the DPA found that it did not need to assess Article 17 GDPR, and rejected the erasure request.

Outcome

Dismissed

The complaint or investigation was dismissed.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DBA in DK

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

Details

Decision Date

31 January 2022

Authority

Datatilsynet (Denmark)

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DBA - Denmark (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: