- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 15 U 89/19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2019)
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 court in Germany ruled that a platform deleted the basic profiles of two doctors without their permission. This matters because it shows that users have rights over their profiles, especially when they are used for advertising without consent.
What happened
The court found that the platform deleted the doctors' basic profiles without their consent.
Who was affected
The affected individuals were two doctors whose profiles were used on the platform.
What the authority found
The court decided that the platform could not be considered a neutral information broker and therefore had to allow the doctors to erase their profiles.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the importance of user consent for profile management and sets a precedent for similar cases. Companies should ensure they respect users' rights to control their personal information.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, authority 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
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
Ruling Date
14 November 2019
Authority
DPA LGBonn
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 15 U 89/19 - Germany (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: