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

Court case W252 2237416-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2023)

Court Ruling
Datenschutzbehörde12 June 2023Austria
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.

An Austrian court ruled in favor of a mail services provider after a customer complained about incomplete information regarding political advertisements. The court found that the provider had disclosed sufficient information about the data used for targeting ads. This ruling reinforces the importance of transparency in data processing.

What happened

A customer claimed that a mail services provider did not fully disclose how their data was used for political advertising.

Who was affected

A customer of the mail services provider who received targeted political advertisements.

What the authority found

The court upheld the provider's appeal, stating that the information given to the customer was adequate and met GDPR requirements.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the need for companies to be transparent about how they use customer data for advertising. Businesses should ensure they provide clear and complete information to users to avoid complaints.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 15(1)(g) GDPR
Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 15(1)(g) GDPR
Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityBVwG
Reviewed AuthorityDSB (Austria)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

No issues were reported by that automated check.

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 made an access request with the controller – a mail services provider. The controller delivered targeted political advertisements and the data subject why they were assigned to certain political affinities. However, in the data subject's view, the controller’s reply was not complete. For example, it did not contain the sources of the data and how the data subject was associated with certain political preferences for the purpose of political advertising. The data subject lodged a complaint with the Austrian DPA. The Austrian DPA upheld the complaint and found a violation of Articles 12(1) and 15(1)(g) and (h) GDPR, as the controller did not provide information about the sources and about how the affinity between the data subject and certain political groups had been inferred. The controller appealed the decision, arguing that the information asked by the data subject was not personal data but only “marketing classifications” to which neither profiling within the meaning of the GDPR nor Article 22(1) GDPR applied. The court upheld the controller's appeal. First, according to the judges, the sources were duly disclosed in the answer to the access request. The disclosure was also transparent and comprehensible, complying with the requirements of Article 12(1) GDPR. Second, concerning the alleged violation of Article 15(1)(h) GDPR, the court found that the controller provided sufficient information to understand the logic behind the automated decision-making pursuant to Article 22(1) and (4) GDPR. As a matter of fact, data processed were address, age and sex of the data subject; the method used a “statistical” one; and the purpose of the processing was to avoid to deliver irrelevant advertisement to the data subject. The court did not concern itself with the problem whether the processing at issue was profiling, nor with the issue whether the “marketing classifications” were actually personal data. The court stated that the disclosure of the algorithm

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case W252 2237416-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

12 June 2023

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

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 W252 2237416-1 - Austria (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: