- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case W214 2225733-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 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.
The Austrian court ruled that a data processor could not mislead users by prioritizing paid listings over free ones without proper consent. The complaint highlighted that the processing was unfair and lacked transparency. This case reinforces the need for clear communication about how personal data is used.
What happened
A complaint was filed against a data processor for misleading users by prioritizing paid listings without proper consent.
Who was affected
Users who relied on the service for information were affected.
What the authority found
The court determined that the data processor did not have a valid legal basis for the processing of personal data, violating GDPR's principles.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for ensuring transparency in data processing practices. Companies should be cautious about how they present their services and ensure they have proper consent for any paid features.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, 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
The data subject filed in a complaint at the Austrian DPA, in which he claimed that such processing could be misleading users and distorting competition, because only the one who would pay, would be in a better position and it also would not be indicated that the position is upon payment. There was no option for comments and ratings from users or any other way to get a possible better position on a List, than buying one - paying the additional fee. A new database and with it connected processing was also not necessary, since there already was a database made by the federal ministry. Also, the commercial interests of the data processor did not override the fundamental rights of the data subject and the data subject also could not expect that his data will be processed like that. The data subject did not give his consent to this kind of data processing and demanded that the data processing stops. Furthermore, he claimed that the services of the data processor did not have any additional value or advantage – so that his potential customers could reach him better or have any informative advantage in comparison with the database of the federal Ministry where the data was primarily stored. There were also no legitimate interests of the data processor, which would allow the processing on the ground of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR or any other legitimate reason for the processing of personal data. The data subject also claimed a violation of Article 14 GDPR, since the information about the processing came after the processing has already started and was also poor in content. The data processor has upon notice complemented the privacy statement. The data controller claimed that his undertaking did not pursue solely commercial interests, but was also in the interest of the general public since it was a specialized search machine and made it possible to search for a therapist. This fact would give the undertaking of the data processor an additional value, which would override the int
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W214 2225733-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
9 December 2021
Authority
Datenschutzbehörde
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W214 2225733-1 - Austria (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: