- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 15 U 126/19 – 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 German court ruled that a dental specialist could have his data removed from a doctor rating site because it was published without his consent. The court decided that the site did not qualify as a journalistic platform. This ruling is significant for how personal data is handled online.
What happened
The court ordered the removal of a dental specialist's data from a rating portal due to unlawful processing.
Who was affected
The dental specialist whose personal data was published on the rating portal without consent.
What the authority found
The court found that the rating portal was not acting as a neutral information broker, thus the specialist had the right to have his data deleted.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for how online platforms must manage personal data, emphasizing that they cannot bypass consent requirements by claiming journalistic purposes.
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 — 19 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, 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
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
Ruling Date
14 November 2019
Authority
DPA LGBonn
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 15 U 126/19 - Germany (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: