- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 62 O 194/23 – 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 court ruled that a telecommunications service provider did not owe damages to a customer who claimed distress from data shared with a credit rating agency. This decision is significant because it clarifies the legal boundaries of data sharing and the conditions under which damages can be claimed.
What happened
The court ruled that the telecommunications service provider's data sharing with a credit rating agency was lawful and did not warrant damages.
Who was affected
The customer of the telecommunications service provider claimed distress from the data transmission to the credit rating agency.
What the authority found
The court held that the customer was not entitled to damages as the data sharing was lawful under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling provides clarity on the legal standards for data sharing and the limits of claiming damages. Companies should understand these boundaries to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.
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.
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
The data subject is a customer of a telecommunications service provider (the controller). The data protection information on the telecommunications contract does state that the controller reports the conclusion of the contract to a credit rating agency. In October 2023, the data subject received a letter of information from the credit rating agency, about the personal data stored, including - among other things - the fact of the conclusion of a telecommunications contract with the controller in January 2021, the account number and the statement, that this information will be stored as long as the business relationship exists. The data subject claims the transmission of data caused distress and existential concern, particularly regarding potential impacts on creditworthiness. The data subject asserts that the transfer of data was unlawful because it did not fulfill the conditions of legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The data subject contends that the controller could have used other available systems for fraud prevention and that the data transfer was unnecessary for maintaining credit system functionality or calculating default risks. The data subject claimed - inter alia - non-material damages of at least €5,000. The controller asserts that the transmission of positive data was lawful under the GDPR, justified by the need to prevent fraud and to protect consumers from excessive indebtedness. The controller disputes that any damage occurred, claiming the data subject’s fears were unfounded and that there was no deterioration in the data subject’s credit score due to the data transfer. The court held, that though the notification of the credit rating agency about the conclusion of the contract constitutes processing (of so called 'postive data') within the meaning of Article 6 GDPR the data subject is not entitled to non-material damages under Article 82(1) GDPR or any other basis against the controller. The court denied Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as a
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 62 O 194/23 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
23 December 2024
Authority
DPA LGAschaffenburg
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 62 O 194/23 - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: