Court case 15 U 89/19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2019)
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.
Two doctors in Germany sued a platform to have their profiles deleted because they were used to promote paying customers. The court found the platform wasn't neutral and granted the doctors' request for erasure. This decision highlights the importance of transparency in how platforms use user data.
What happened
Two doctors sued a platform for deleting their profiles, which were used to advertise paying customers without consent.
Who was affected
Doctors whose profiles were used on a platform to promote paying customers without their consent.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the platform was not a neutral information broker and granted the doctors the right to have their profiles erased.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes that platforms must be transparent about how they use user data and cannot disguise promotional activities as neutral information sharing. Website operators should ensure they have clear consent and transparency in their data practices.
GDPR Articles Cited
Two doctors sued a platform for deletion of their basic profile set up on the platform without their consent under Article 17 GDPR. They argued that due to the functions of the site, non-paying doctors (basic customers) were used on the site as an advertising platform for paying doctors (premium customers) in an inadmissible manner, partly due to functions hidden from regular users. Is a platform that grants certain benefits to "premium" listings a journalistic platform? The Higher Regional Court focused in particular on whether the evaluation site was a “neutral information broker” by granting customers “hidden advantages” - terms developed through the case law of the Federal Supreme Court to assess whether the exception in Article 17(3) GDPR applies. The court examined the various functions of the site on a case by case basis and found that the site left the role as a “neutral information broker” through four of the contested functions. The controller can therefore not be seen as a journalistic platform. The doctors were therefore given the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. The Court admitted the appeal (“Revision”) to the Federal Supreme Court. → See the parallel case OLG Cologne - 15 U 126/19.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 15 U 89/19 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 15 U 89/19 - Germany (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: