Court case 6 Ta 49/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)
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 German court ruled that a care service violated privacy rules by filming an employee for promotional purposes without proper consent. The employee was entitled to damages, highlighting the importance of clear consent and transparency in data use.
What happened
A care service filmed an employee and published the video on YouTube without proper consent.
Who was affected
An employee who was filmed at work and whose video was shared online without adequate consent.
What the authority found
The court found that the care service violated GDPR by not obtaining written consent and failing to inform the employee about the video's purpose and their rights.
Why this matters
This case underscores the need for businesses to obtain clear, informed consent before using personal data for promotional purposes. It also illustrates that breaches of privacy rules can lead to compensation claims, even without proof of specific harm.
GDPR Articles Cited
The controller operated a care service where the data subject was employed. The controller filmed the data subject in their work environment and published a thirty-six second video on Youtube for promotional purposes. The data subject had previously given verbal consent to the filming but had not received any further information about the purpose of the filming or their rights. Later, the data subject objected to the use of the video and claimed €6,000 in damages during proceedings before the labour court. The controller deactivated the video immediately afterwards. The parties involved reached an agreement and settled the dispute. The data subject had applied for legal aid for claiming damages up to €6,000. The ArbG Kiel granted it up to the amount of €2,000. Thereupon, the data subject then appealed to the LAG Schleswig-Holstein for legal aid in the amount of €6,000. The court upheld the original decision. The controller infringed the GDPR by filming the data subject and publishing the clip because the data subject had not given written consent and was not informed about the purpose of the data processing or their right to withdraw consent. The data subject is entitled for maximum damages of up to €2,000, but not €6,000 as requested. The data subject does not have to prove that damage within the meaning of Article 82(1) GDPR has occurred, as a breach of the GDPR itself constitutes non-material damage. Recital 146, sentences 1 and 6 GDPR support this interpretation, as the claims for damages serve to support the objectives of the Regulation and in particular to provide effective protection of individuals’ rights. The court confirmed that damages in this case can amount to a maximum of €2,000. The controller did not film the data subject in intimate situations or discriminate them and the data subject gave verbal consent to be filmed. Furthermore, the controller reduced the harm by taking the video down immediately after the data subject requested it. However, on
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Violations (1)
No accessible mechanism exists for users to withdraw previously given cookie consent.
Art. 7(3) GDPR
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 6 Ta 49/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Similar Cases
Enforcement actions with similar violations
CRITEO
2023 · Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés
CALOGA
2025 · Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés
Wallapop S.L.
2025 · Agencia Española de Protección de Datos
Yahoo EMEA Limited
2023 · Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés
Wind Tre SpA
2020 · Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 6 Ta 49/22 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: