- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 3 C 112/24 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2024)
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 German court dismissed a claim for damages from a social network user who consented to ads after using the service for free. This case is important because it clarifies that users must clearly understand their rights regarding data processing. Businesses should ensure users know their options for data consent.
What happened
A user claimed damages for data processing without consent while using a social network.
Who was affected
A user of the social network who claimed damages for unauthorized data processing.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the user's claims were too vague and therefore inadmissible.
Why this matters
This case underscores the need for clear communication about consent and the rights of users regarding their data on digital platforms.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: national law identified, 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
The data subject used the social network operated by the controller. Until 07 November 2023 it’s service was free of cost. After that, the controller explicitly demanded a consent for personalised advertisement in order to continue the social network for free. The data subject consented and did not opt for the payment model that would have allowed using the platform without consenting to the advertisement (“pay or okay”). For the time before his consent, the data subject claimed €1,500 in non-material damages alleging that, without consent, the processing of his personal data for advertisement purposes had been illegal. He alternatively based his claim on what the court refers to as a reversed licence analogy: Before consenting to personalised advertisement, the data subject had used the social network for 66 months. Referring to the post 2023 payment model’s monthly cost of €20, the data subject claimed 66 * €20 = €1,320 in unjust enrichment. The court held that the claim based on two different legal bases was too vague and therefore inadmissible under [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__253.html § 253(2)(2) German Civil Process Order] (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO). This is due to the fact that if the court decides by, e.g., granting the claim on the basis of unjust enrichment, there would be no decision on the non-material damages. Therefore, the controller couldn’t determine if the data subject would sue again. This happens, when one claim is based on two matters of dispute rather than two legal bases for the same claim. The court held that non-material damages and unjust enrichment claims were two matters in dispute since the claimed damage is non-material while the claimed unjust enrichment is about a material amount of money that allegedly is still within the assets of the controller. Both are two different things: A damage of the data subject does not necessarily correspond with a material enrichment of the controller and, vice versa, an unjust enrichme
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 3 C 112/24 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
28 October 2024
Authority
DPA AGLrrach
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 3 C 112/24 - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: