KPN – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 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 Dutch court ruled that KPN, an internet provider, did not have to hand over IP address information to a plaintiff claiming fraud. The court found the plaintiff couldn't prove the IP addresses belonged to those who committed the alleged fraud. This decision highlights the challenges of proving online fraud without clear evidence.
What happened
KPN was asked to provide IP address information to help a plaintiff prove fraud but the court denied the request.
Who was affected
The plaintiff, who was removed from the National Interpreters Registry due to alleged fraudulent activities, was affected.
What the authority found
The court decided that KPN did not need to release IP address information because the plaintiff failed to show the addresses were linked to fraudulent activity.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the difficulty of obtaining subscriber information from ISPs without clear evidence of wrongdoing. It serves as a reminder for businesses and individuals to maintain detailed records when dealing with online transactions.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
Plaintiff was removed from the National Interpreters Registry after claims of fraud. The Tolk- en Vertaalcentrum Nederland (Dutch Interpreters and Translation centre), a intermediary company where plaintiff had an account, claims that plaintiff fraudulently put out, accepted, and then cancelled interpreting assignments, inducing the centre to pay him cancellation fees. As a result hereof, plaintiff was removed from both the centre and the national registry, and lost income. Plaintiff disputes that he put out the cancelled assignments, and claims that the Court should order KPN, an Internet Service Provider ('ISP'), to hand over information on the users of the IP addresses from which the assignments were created. This would allow plaintiff to prove that others put out the assignments, and claim damages from them. The Court considers that (in line with Dutch jurisprudence, see [http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU4019 HR 25 november 2005, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU4019 (Lycos/Pessers)]) under certain circumstances ISPs can be forced to hand over subscriber information to injured parties. This allows them to bring actions before civil courts. This is in line with Article 6(1)f GDPR, as it necessary for the purposes of protecting the legitimate interests of a third party. However, in the present case, claimant fails to demonstrate that the 37 IP addresses logged by the intermediary company belong to one or more data subjects which have indeed fraudulently put out assignments. First of all, KPN only holds on to IP information for six months whereas all the assignments were put out in the period between 2017 and 2019. Secondly, the claimant received at least €3000. It is not credible that the claimant simply did not notice these charges before he was removed from both the intermediary and the national registry. Therefore, it seems unlikely that receiving the subscriber information will help claimant in his disputes with both organisations. As the con
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for KPN in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. KPN - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: