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

Court case W256 2246230-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA DPA7 June 2024Austria
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 ruling in Austria found that a customer loyalty program did not properly obtain consent from users to process their personal data. This ruling is significant because it reinforces the need for clear and valid consent mechanisms when collecting personal information. Companies should ensure that their consent processes are compliant with data protection laws.

What happened

The court ruled that the customer loyalty program failed to obtain valid consent from users for processing their personal data.

Who was affected

Customers participating in the loyalty program were affected by the improper consent practices.

What the authority found

The authority determined that the consent obtained did not meet GDPR requirements, leading to a violation of data protection rules.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights the importance of obtaining clear and informed consent from users. Businesses should review their consent practices to ensure compliance with GDPR.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 7(2) GDPR
Art. 83 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 7(2) GDPR
Art. 83(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityBVwG
Reviewed AuthorityDPA

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 20 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, amount discrepancy, 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 controller was responsible for a multi-partner customer loyalty programme. Customers of participating retail shops could register as members, collect points based on their purchases and subsequently redeem them to receive various "exclusive" benefits and discounts. For participation in the programme, the controller collected personal data from the customers. Only the data of customers who gave consent during the registration process were processed to create profiles of the members about their purchasing behaviour for the purpose of personalised advertising. This was not mandatory for the conclusion of the contract. Consent was obtained by signing up via a physical brochure at the partner shops or on the website. The physical brochure obtained consent through a signature field at the end of the registration form, slightly separated from the text “declaration of consent”. To the left of this, at the same height, was the mandatory field "Date" required for registration. The field for the signature was not marked with a "*" meaning "mandatory field". The website obtained consent under the heading "Enjoy your own personal benefits" with a tick box yes and no to the processing of data to benefit from exclusive benefits and promotions. After the Supreme Administrative Court (“Verwaltungsgerichtshof – VwGH”) annulled part of the DPA’s decision against the controller, the DPA started anew the respective part of the procedure against the controller. In that decision, the DPA held that the way the controller obtained consent on its website and on their physical registration brochure did not meet the requirements under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in conjunction with Article 7(2) GDPR. As a result of the lack of consent, the controller could not base its processing of personal data on consent under Article 6(1)(a). Thus, DPA held that the controller also violated Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA fined the controller €2 million under Article 83(

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case W256 2246230-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

7 June 2024

Authority

DPA DPA

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 W256 2246230-1 - Austria (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: