- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 24/02161 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)
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 Dutch court ruled that a bank's method for verifying a customer's identity did not involve biometric data processing. This matters because it clarifies how companies can use personal identification methods without violating privacy laws. The decision helps set boundaries for how financial institutions handle sensitive information.
What happened
The court decided that the bank's identity verification process did not constitute biometric processing under GDPR.
Who was affected
The individual who applied for a credit card and was required to verify their identity online.
What the authority found
The court found that the bank's method of identity verification was lawful and did not violate GDPR's rules on biometric data.
Why this matters
This ruling provides guidance on how identity verification can be conducted without crossing privacy lines. Companies should ensure their methods comply with privacy regulations to avoid legal challenges.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, 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 applied for a credit card in 2008 and was granted it. In July 2020, the bank (controller) requested that the data subject identify themselves online by providing a copy of their ID and a digital selfie. A bank employee would then compare the two images and approve it. The data subject was informed that this was necessary to comply with the provisions of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) and failure to do this would result in their card being terminated. In late July and early August, the controller contacted the data subject, again requesting that they verify their identity through the online portal. On 17 August 2020, the data subject was informed that their credit card agreement would be cancelled in November 2020, unless they verified their identity before then. In September 2020, the data subject sued the controller in the Subdistrict Court of Amsterdam, which declared some of her claims as inadmissible and dismissed others. In August 2021, the data subject appealed to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The data subject sought, inter alia, the restoration of their credit card, the payment of compensation, and a declaration that the bank’s proposed method of identification is unlawful. In March 2024, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower Court. The data subject then appealed to the Supreme Court. The data subject argued that the processing of biometric data in the identity verification procedure is unlawful under Article 9(1) GDPR and that the appellate court had erred in finding that the controller could retain copies of their ID after the verification had been performed. The Parket opined that the verification of the data subject’s identity in this method did not constitute biometric processing, falling under Article 9 GDPR. The Parket reasoned that the identification of the individual in this process is performed by an employee of the controller, not by software. The processing operation was therefor
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 24/02161 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
21 February 2025
Authority
DPA HogeRaad
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 24/02161 - Netherlands (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: