X (formerly Twitter) – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam7 October 2025Netherlands
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.

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

AI-verified

Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 22(GDPR)
View original scraped data
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 22(GDPR)

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

Artikel 22 Rechtsvordering
Artikel 28 Rechtsvordering
Decision AuthorityGHAMS
Reviewed AuthorityRb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Source verified 21 March 2026
national law identified
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. X (formerly Twitter) - Netherlands (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: