- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- No confirmed legal basis recorded.
- Privacy topics
Court case 8403670 \ CV EXPL 20-1229 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)
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 window cleaning company could not cancel a sale of its customer database just because it failed to get consent from the customers. This is important because it clarifies that not all data protection issues invalidate business contracts. The court decided the buyer still had to pay for the database.
What happened
The court ruled that the buyer must pay the agreed price for a customer database, despite claims about GDPR compliance.
Who was affected
The window cleaning company that sold its customer database and the buyer who disputed the payment.
What the authority found
The court held that the lack of customer consent did not breach the acquisition agreement, as it was not a contractual obligation.
Why this matters
This ruling indicates that data protection issues may not always affect business contracts. Companies should still ensure compliance with data protection laws to avoid future disputes.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 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
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
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 8403670 \ CV EXPL 20-1229 - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: