Court case VI ZR 183/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

On 25 September 2018, the data subject signed a mobile phone contract with the controller (telecom provider), which allowed an early renewal with a new 24-month term at a lower rate. On 27 December 2018, the data subject renewed the contract under the early renewal option. The data subject later revoked the renewal, claiming withdrawal rights. The controller kept on billing the data subject for contract-related charges, which remained unpaid. On 16 September 2019, the controller reported the alleged unpaid debt to a credit rating agency (SCHUFA), although the debt was disputed and not legally confirmed, meaning that the disclosure should not have been made. Subsequently, on 27 September 2019, the controller requested SCHUFA to delete the entry of the disputed debt. However, the entry remained for nearly two years, negatively impacting the data subject's creditworthiness. As a result, the data subject was even denied a bank loan. The data subject sued the controller, claiming €6,000 in non-material damages under Article 82 GDPR for reputational harm. The Regional Court (Landgericht Koblenz - LG Koblenz) denied the GDPR-based damages, ruling in favor of the controller. On first appeal the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Koblenz - OLG Koblenz) overturned the first ruling and awarded €500 in non-material damages for reputational harm referring to a punitive function of Article 82 GDPR. That court found that the controller violated Articles 5 and 6 GDPR by arranging the SCHUFA entry and that the data subject had suffered non-material damages as a consequence. In a further appeal by the controller disputed the amount of the non-material damages. The BGH held, that GDPR damages serve only a compensatory, not a punitive function. Thus it ruled that neither the gravity of the GDPR violation nor the question of fault can be taken into account when setting the amount of the damage. Therefore it found a legal error in the OLG Koblenz's decision, however th