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

Court case 10 O 126/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)

Court Ruling
DPA LGDuisburg14 June 2023Germany
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 ruled that Facebook did not violate GDPR when a user claimed damages after a data breach linked phone numbers to profiles. The court found that the user had consented to the privacy settings and did not change them after the breach. This decision clarifies that users must actively manage their privacy settings.

What happened

A user claimed damages from Facebook after a data breach, alleging their phone number was linked to their profile.

Who was affected

The user who experienced unsolicited calls and phishing emails following the data breach.

What the authority found

The court ruled that Facebook did not breach GDPR because the user had consented to the privacy settings and did not change them after the breach.

Why this matters

This case reinforces the importance of users managing their privacy settings actively. It also indicates that companies may not be held liable if users consent to their privacy policies.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 82 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 82(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityLG Duisburg

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject used the service provided by Facebook, the controller. The controller's service allowed users to select whether they wanted to be seen publicly, among others their phone number. If this function was set to be visible to everyone then the phone number could be linked with the person's profile and such profile could be found by everyone using in possession of the phone number. This function was the default setting. A data breach in 2019 had as a consequence that unauthorised third-parties could link phone numbers and profiles because of the above-mentioned function. 533 million Facebook users were affected. Consequently, the data subject claimed in court non-material damages pursuant to Article 82. They alleged a series of unsolicited calls and phishing emails following the breach. The court rejected the data subject's claim. The court held that the controller did not breach the GDPR because the processing was lawfully based on consent. The data subject voluntarily agreed to the privacy policy when registering. According to the court, the privacy policy was also presented in a transparent manner in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Moreover, the obligations under Article 25(2) GDPR, according to which the protection of personal data has to be ensured by design and by default, were also not infringed because the controller's service explicitly gave the data subject the option to customize the settings in privacy-friendly terms. Furthermore, the controller did not infringe its confidentiality obligation under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as the data subject did not change the above mentioned function after the data breach occurred. An infringement pursuant to Article 33 and 34 GDPR was also excluded by the court because legally speaking there was no data breach to begin with. Not only the data subject willingly made public their personal data, but also did not change the settings after scraping event, as stated above. Thus, the controller was obliged

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 10 O 126/22 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

14 June 2023

Authority

DPA LGDuisburg

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 10 O 126/22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: