Court case 15 O 262/23 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA LGLbeck23 January 2025Germany
final
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The data subject took a case against a telecommunications provider, here the controller, for unlawfully disclosing their data. The controller transmitted the following data to a credit rating agency, namely SCHUFA Holding AG: name, address, date of birth, start and end date of the contract, contract number and a SCHUFA ID. Upon the data subject’s request, SCHUFA informed him that information on the contract conclusion had been supplied to SCHUFA and that this information will be stored until the end of the contract. The data subject called on the controller to cease the data transfer and to pay damages, which the controller rejected. The data subject stated that he didn’t know that the controller would share this information and that this transfer brought upon him feelings of loss of control and worry. The data subject claimed for a minimum of €5,000 in damages and a declaration on claims regarding damages for future loss. The controller brought forward that with the formation of the contract, the data subject was supplied with an informational which included a notice on the transfer of data to SCHUFA. It therefore concluded that the data subject was informed about the transfer, which nevertheless was necessary for fraud prevention No legal basis The court found that the controller could not rely on any legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR for the data transfer. The court rejected the argument that the processing could be based on the legitimate interest of fraud prevention. The court explained that prevention of fraud committed by the data subject cannot be a legitimate interest in this case as the contract has already been concluded. The controller therefore doesn’t directly benefit from transferring the data subject’s contract information but instead can benefit from an informed and detailed credit rating system in order to assess future customers to prevent fraud. The court highlighted that telecommunication providers, including the controller, have ceased

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 82 GDPR
Decision AuthorityLG Lübeck
Full Legal Summary

The data subject took a case against a telecommunications provider, here the controller, for unlawfully disclosing their data. The controller transmitted the following data to a credit rating agency, namely SCHUFA Holding AG: name, address, date of birth, start and end date of the contract, contract number and a SCHUFA ID. Upon the data subject’s request, SCHUFA informed him that information on the contract conclusion had been supplied to SCHUFA and that this information will be stored until the end of the contract. The data subject called on the controller to cease the data transfer and to pay damages, which the controller rejected. The data subject stated that he didn’t know that the controller would share this information and that this transfer brought upon him feelings of loss of control and worry. The data subject claimed for a minimum of €5,000 in damages and a declaration on claims regarding damages for future loss. The controller brought forward that with the formation of the contract, the data subject was supplied with an informational which included a notice on the transfer of data to SCHUFA. It therefore concluded that the data subject was informed about the transfer, which nevertheless was necessary for fraud prevention No legal basis The court found that the controller could not rely on any legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR for the data transfer. The court rejected the argument that the processing could be based on the legitimate interest of fraud prevention. The court explained that prevention of fraud committed by the data subject cannot be a legitimate interest in this case as the contract has already been concluded. The controller therefore doesn’t directly benefit from transferring the data subject’s contract information but instead can benefit from an informed and detailed credit rating system in order to assess future customers to prevent fraud. The court highlighted that telecommunication providers, including the controller, have ceased

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 15 O 262/23 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

23 January 2025

Authority

DPA LGLbeck

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 15 O 262/23 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: