Data protection authority of Saarland (defendant) – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)
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 court in Saarland ruled that a company contacted people for marketing without their consent. The company couldn't prove they had permission, and the court found this to be unreasonable harassment. This decision highlights the importance of having clear consent before reaching out to potential customers.
What happened
A company contacted individuals for direct marketing without proving they had consent.
Who was affected
Individuals who were contacted by the company for marketing purposes without their consent.
What the authority found
The court found that the company lacked a valid reason to contact people for marketing, as they couldn't prove consent and had no legitimate interest.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the need for businesses to obtain and document clear consent before engaging in direct marketing. It also shows that courts may consider such actions as harassment if consent is not properly managed.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
Following the complaint of two petitioners claiming that the plaintiff had contacted them for direct marketing purposes, even though they had not consented to the processing of their personal data to this effect, the supervisory authority for data protection in Saarland, the defendant, ordered a limitation of the processing and an erasure of the unlawfully processed personal data of the petitioners by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) and Article 58(2)(g) GDPR. The plaintiff had not been able to prove that the consent of the petitioners had been obtained in accordance with the requirements of Article 7(1) GDPR. The argument presented by the company, alleging that the petitioners' consent had been collected at the time of their participation in a lottery and confirmed via e-mail as part of a so called "double opt-in process", were not considered sufficient by the supervisory authority. The authority pointed out that the plaintiff should have been able to prove that the consent actually originated from the person contacted for direct marketing purposes, which had not been the case in the present matter. Furthermore, the authority underlined that the plaintiff could not justify a legitimate interest pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, which would allow them to process the petitioners' data without their consent, the petitioners not having any business relationship with the plaintiff and therefore no reasonable expectation to be contacted by the plaintiff's company. In this context, contacting the petitioners for direct marketing purposes without their prior consent even qualified as unreasonable harassment under § 7(2)(2) of the national competition law (UWG). The plaintiff appealed the decision of the supervisory authority before the administrative court of Saarland (VG Saarlouis), arguing amongst other things that the orders could only be considered contradictory because of the reference to requirements from data protection as well as competition laws which
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Data protection authority of Saarland (defendant) in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Data protection authority of Saarland (defendant) - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: