an unnamed data subject – €500,000 Fine (Italy, 2022)
Vodafone was fined for improperly obtaining consent from an elderly woman during a telemarketing call. The call center spoke too quickly and combined consent for different purposes, violating privacy rules. This case underscores the need for clear and separate consent in marketing calls.
What happened
Vodafone's call center failed to obtain valid consent from an elderly woman for processing her personal data during a telemarketing call.
Who was affected
An 85-year-old woman who received a telemarketing call from Vodafone's call center.
What the authority found
The Italian data protection authority found that Vodafone lacked a valid legal basis for processing the woman's data, as consent was not properly obtained.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the importance of obtaining clear and distinct consent for different processing activities. Companies should ensure their telemarketing practices comply with privacy regulations.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
Entities Involved
An 85-year-old woman (the data subject) received a call from an Albanian call centre, working for Italian telecom provider Vodafone (the data controller) and allegedly concluded a contract with Vodafone over the phone. During the call, the telemarketer provided the data subject with information about the processing of her personal data. The operator collected a generic consent for the two distinct purposes of performing the contract and forwarding promotional information. All information regarding the contract was delivered at a speed of 200 words per minute, including the information on the processing of the subject's personal data. The data subject's son later contacted the controller and protested that she never concluded a contract. The controller cancelled the contract and refunded all expenses. Three months later, the son of the data subject filed a complaint with the Italian DPA, claiming that the contract was concluded in violation of the GDPR. During the investigation, the data controller claimed that the data subject herself previously contacted the call centre to conclude the contract. However, the controller failed to provide conclusive proof of the data subject's first call. The DPA dismissed the controller's version as highly unlikely and noted that the burden of proof of consent lies on the data controller according to the accountability principle laid down in Article 5(2) GDPR. For this reason, the DPA concluded that the call centre first contacted the data subject. The DPA held that the controller processed her personal data for direct marketing purposes with no legal basis and without providing any information on the processing, in violation of Articles 5(1), 6, 7, 12(1) and 13 GDPR. The DPA also held that the data controller failed to collect specific consent for processing personal data for promotion purposes, in violation of Article 4(11) that requires that such consent is distinct from the other matters like the contract. Therefore, the DPA h
Violations (1)
Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Related Enforcement Actions (2)
Other enforcement actions involving an unnamed data subject in IT
Fine
€500K
Similar Cases
Enforcement actions with similar violations
Details
Fine Date
10 November 2022
Authority
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
Fine Amount
€500,000
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-5484About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. an unnamed data subject - Italy (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: