Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Blauw Research B.V. – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2023)

Court Ruling
DPA RbRotterdam6 April 2023Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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.

A court in the Netherlands ruled that Blauw Research B.V. must receive detailed information from its software provider after a cyber attack. The ruling is significant because it clarifies the responsibilities of service providers in data breach situations.

What happened

Blauw Research B.V. demanded information from NEBU B.V. after a cyber attack compromised data.

Who was affected

Blauw Research B.V. and its customers whose personal data may have been leaked.

What the authority found

The court ordered the processor to provide all requested information to help the controller investigate the cyber incident properly.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the importance of communication and transparency between companies and their service providers during data breaches. It sets a precedent for how companies should handle such incidents.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 28(3) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 28(3) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Decision AuthorityRb. Rotterdam

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.

Processing notes: 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

In this decision, Blauw Research B.V., a market research agency (controller) had a processing agreement with NEBU B.V., a software provider (processor). On 10-11 March 2023, the processor suffered a cyber attack by which third parties gained unauthorized access to its servers and data was extracted. The processor informed the controller about it two days after the attack took place. The controller requested more information and the processor confirmed that data (passwords) had been stolen and personal data (stored in cloud databases and surveys) were leaked. After repeatedly requesting information, unsatisfied with the processor's replies, the controller brought the case to the Court of Rotterdam. During the proceeding, the controller explained that it considered that, based on the processing agreement, the processor must provide information regarding security incidents and data breaches at all times. It also argued that the information provided following the cyber attack was not sufficient to meet the requirements set out in the agreement. The processor objected to such claim. As a result, the controller claimed to order the processor to: # provide information about (i) the details of the cyber attack; (ii) how and with what methods the system was recovered after the attack; (iii) an overview of which customers' personal data were leaked; (iv) the perpetrators of the attack; (v) which preventive and reactive technical and organisational measures were taken; (vi) internal reporting within the organization of the processor about the cyber attack that has taken place; # in the future, within 4 hours after new information is available, transfer this information to the controller and send an update on the state of affairs twice a day (at 14:00 and 19:00); # appoint a forensic investigator to find out the root-cause analysis; and # provide all necessary assistance and to answer all controller's questions. In the event of non compliance, the controller claimed a penalty of €25,000 per day with a maximum of €500,000. The processor considered this amount as unreasonable. The preliminary relief judge upheld the claim, but in a watered-down form. The Court ruled that the processor must provide all the requested information in order to enable controller to investigate the cyber incident in a proper manner. With regards to the claim to inform the controller of new information within four hours the Court stated that this will only apply when (i) a new cyberattack occurs (ii) new information shows that personal data of controller were compromised or (iii) information about the perpetrators is known. In all other cases an update twice a day seemed exagerated and the Court held that a daily update at 18:00 would be sufficient. Concerning the appointment of an external forensic researcher the Court confirmed that within the framework of the instruction right of the controller, it can appoint an external researcher/auditor to check whether personal data is processed securely. Finally, the Court considered the amount of €25,000 per day was not unreasonable and added it to the judgement.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Blauw Research B.V. in NL

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

6 April 2023

Authority

DPA RbRotterdam

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Blauw Research B.V. - Netherlands (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: