Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Court case 4 U 760/19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2019)

Court Ruling
DPA LGGrlitz11 June 2019Germany
final
Court Ruling

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 ruled that a video from the 1970s shared on social media was deleted lawfully, and the user's account was temporarily limited. The court found that the user did not suffer any significant harm from these actions. This case highlights that not all discomfort leads to compensation under data protection laws.

What happened

A video shared by a user was deleted and their account was temporarily limited.

Who was affected

The user who shared the video on social media.

What the authority found

The court decided that the deletion and account limitation were lawful and did not result in any compensable harm.

Why this matters

This ruling clarifies that minor inconveniences do not always warrant compensation under data protection laws. It serves as a reminder for users and companies to understand the limits of their rights.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 82(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 82(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Decision AuthorityOLG Dresden
Reviewed AuthorityLG Görlitz (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 22 March 2026.

Processing notes: 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

In that case, the Claimant brought an action against the deletion of a video from the 1970s that he shared in a social network where the word "negro" appeared several times. He also complained about having his account limited to "read only" mode for a few days (the exact duration is disputed between the parties). With regard to Article 99(2) GDPR, the Court already expressed doubts as to whether Article 82 GDPR is applicable to the deletion/blocking that took place in March/April 2018, as this regarded a past and completed situation. However, this point could be left open as for the Court, the video deletion and temporary account blocking was lawful under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR in connection with the terms of use of the network. In any event, the Claimant did not suffer any non-material damages pursuant to Artcile 82(1) GDPR. Not every perceived discomfort without serious impairment of an individual's self-image or reputation may constitute such damage. Recital 146 to the GDPR, referring to "full and effective compensation", does not alter this finding. Otherwise, an almost "unconditional" right to non-material compensation would arise under data protection law.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 4 U 760/19 in DE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

11 June 2019

Authority

DPA LGGrlitz

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 4 U 760/19 - Germany (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: