X (formerly Twitter) – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)
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.
A Dutch court ruled that X Corp., the company behind the social media platform X, must provide a user with more information about how their data is processed. This is significant because it reinforces users' rights to understand automated decisions that affect them.
What happened
The court ordered X to respond to a user's request for access to their personal data and details about automated decision-making.
Who was affected
The user of the X platform who requested information about their personal data and automated decisions made about them.
What the authority found
The court held that the user is entitled to detailed information about how their data is used in automated systems under GDPR rules.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in automated decision-making processes. It encourages companies to be more open about how they use personal data, which can help users make informed choices.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
The controller is X Corp., the provider of the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The data subject, an X user, made an access request to X under Article 15 GDPR, requesting access to personal data held about him, including information about automated decision-making (“ADM”) under Article 22 GDPR. His request was not satisfied. The data subject filed a case before the court of first instance (Amsterdam District Court - Rechtbank Amsterdam) demanding the satisfaction of his rights. On 5 July 2024, the court of first instance ordered X to respond to the data subject’s access request and provide details on ADM including specific information about some function of X like “reputation scores”, “labels“ and a particular system (“system y“). X then appealed the decision of the court of first instance before the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof Amsterdam - AmsterdamCourt of Appeal). X sought the annulment of the contested decision, or in any case the exclusion from the data to be provided, data from which the operation of X's content moderation systems, spam filters and advertising settings could be deducted. X maintained that the court of first instance should not have ordered it to give (full) access to the data processing in the “system y“. According to X the system contains trade secrets and sensitive security information, which if fallen in the wrong hands could lead to abuses of the platform. X had therefore, for the time being, only provided a redacted version of “system y“ to the data subject, in which all confidential information had been deleted. X further requested the court of appeal to impose a disclosure prohibition (gag order - mededelingenverbod) to the data subject within the meaning of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) (Article 28(1)(b)) with regard to the unredacted version of “system y“ that had yet to be submitted. This request covered all information that has been omitted from the full version of the documentation “system y“
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for X (formerly Twitter) in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
7 October 2025
Authority
DPA RbAmsterdam
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. X (formerly Twitter) - Netherlands (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: