Court case 15 U 126/19 – 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.
A German court ruled that a doctor could have his data removed from a rating website because the site was not acting as a neutral information broker. The court found that the website's premium features compromised its neutrality, allowing the doctor to request data deletion under GDPR. This case underscores the limits of journalistic exceptions for online platforms.
What happened
A doctor requested the deletion of his data from a rating website, which was granted because the site was not neutral.
Who was affected
Doctors whose data was published on the rating portal without their consent.
What the authority found
The court found that the website's premium features meant it was not a neutral information broker, allowing the doctor to request data deletion under GDPR.
Why this matters
This decision highlights that platforms offering premium features may not qualify for journalistic exemptions under GDPR, impacting how such sites manage user data. Website operators should review their business models to ensure compliance.
GDPR Articles Cited
The plaintiff is a dental specialist and demanded that the defendant, which operates a rating portal for doctors with more than six million users per month, delete his data published on this portal without his consent. The Court of First Instance found that the plaintiff could request the deletion of his personal data pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR since the data was unlawfully processed. The defendant claimed that its activities fall under exception in (Article 85 GDPR) read in conjunction with Recital 153 and the right to freedom of expression and information as it carries out processing activities for journalistic purposes. 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 89/19.
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 126/19 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 126/19 - Germany (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: