Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie (SOMI) – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 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.
Three Dutch foundations sued TikTok, claiming it violated children's and adults' privacy by sharing their data without permission. The court considered the cases together but did not issue a ruling on the claims. The case emphasizes the importance of legal representation in class actions.
What happened
Three Dutch foundations filed lawsuits against TikTok for allegedly sharing user data without a legal basis.
Who was affected
Children and adults using TikTok, whose data was allegedly shared without consent.
What the authority found
The court did not issue a decision on the claims but considered the jurisdiction and representation aspects of the case.
Why this matters
This case underscores the growing scrutiny of social media platforms' data practices and the role of class actions in defending privacy rights.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
Stichting onderzoek Marktinformatie (SOMI), Stichting Take Back Your Privacy (STBYP) and Stichting Massaschade & Consument (SMC) are three Dutch Foundations focused on class actions. The Foundations all separately sued the TikTok group (the controller). TikTok is a social media platform where users can post, view, like and share videos. SOMI summoned TikTok Ireland, while STBYP and SMC started class actions against multiple TikTok entities. As the cases were similar, they were considered together in this preliminary ruling. = The foundations claimed that the controller violated the fundamental rights of children (all foundations) and adults (SMC). In particular, the way that the controller processed personal data violated the GDPR, the Telecommunications Act and the Media Act. In addition, the controller violated provisions of mandatory consumer and media law. The foundations stated that the controller shared personal data of users with third parties without a legal basis. The foundations each requested the Court to designate it as the exclusive representative within the meaning of [https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0001827&boek=Derde&titeldeel=14&artikel=1018&z=2022-10-01&g=2022-10-01 Article 1018(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure] (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering- Rv) for the data subjects as described in their summons. This concerned minors for SOMI and STBYP and minors and adults for SMC. Regarding the jurisdiction, the foundations stated that the Dutch Court had jurisdiction under Article 79(2) to 80 GDPR, as well as under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:351:0001:0032:en:PDF the Brussels I Regulation] (Brussels I) and [https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0001827&z=2021-01-01&g=2021-01-01 Code of Civil Procedure]. = The controller requested that the Court declared itself incompetent to take note of any claims that fell within the scope of the GDPR. According to the controller, the right to bring proceeding
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie (SOMI) in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie (SOMI) - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: