Court case 8403670 \ CV EXPL 20-1229 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA RbOverijssel9 February 2021Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 Dutch court ruled that a window cleaning company did not breach its contract by failing to get customer consent when selling its database. This matters because it clarifies that GDPR compliance issues don't automatically invalidate business contracts.

What happened

A window cleaning company sold its customer database without obtaining customer consent, leading to a contract dispute.

Who was affected

Customers of the window cleaning company whose data was included in the sold database.

What the authority found

The court decided that the lack of customer consent did not breach the acquisition contract, as GDPR compliance was not part of the contractual obligations.

Why this matters

This ruling clarifies that GDPR issues do not necessarily void business agreements, but companies should still ensure compliance to avoid potential fines. It highlights the distinction between contractual obligations and regulatory compliance.

National Law Articles

civil law
Decision AuthorityRb. Overijssel
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

A window cleaning company (Plaintiff) sold its customer database to the Defendant. The Plaintiff requested a fee for the database. The Defendant paid a third of the fee to the Plaintiff and did not want to pay the rest of the fee, as it argued that the transfer of the customer database did not comply with the GDPR. It claimed that the Plaintiff failed to ask for the customers’ consent and provided inaccurate and incomplete personal data - customers’ emails were missing. As a result, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not comply with the acquisition agreement. Can the Defendant’s claim based on the GDPR invalidate an acquisition contract? The court held that the Plaintiff complied with the acquisition agreement and decided that the lack of consent does not constitute a breach of contract. The Plaintiff did not commit to obtain costumer’ consent and, the compliance with the GDPR was not part of the contractual obligations negotiated. Therefore, the parties did not agree that the Plaintiff would ask for consent and that the failure to do so should constitute a defect. The Court further explained that a GDPR infringement may be sanctioned with an administrative fine, which the Dutch DPA may impose on the parties involved. This does not mean that an acquisition agreement, in which data of third parties are 'traded', must be considered as invalid. Nor does it provide a ground for termination. Thus, the Defendant must pay the agreed purchase price, plus interests and the cost of the proceedings.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 8403670 \ CV EXPL 20-1229 in NL

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

Details

Ruling Date

9 February 2021

Authority

DPA RbOverijssel

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 8403670 \ CV EXPL 20-1229 - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: