Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

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

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam7 October 2025Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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.

X Corp., the owner of the social media platform X, faced a court case after a user requested access to their personal data, including information on automated decision-making. The court ordered X to comply, but X appealed, arguing that some data contained trade secrets. This case highlights the tension between user rights and corporate confidentiality.

What happened

A user requested access to their personal data from X, including details about automated decision-making processes.

Who was affected

The user of the X platform who sought access to their personal data.

What the authority found

The court ordered X to provide the requested data, but X appealed, claiming that some information was confidential.

Why this matters

This case underscores the challenges companies face in balancing user rights with the protection of sensitive business information. It serves as a reminder for businesses to prepare for access requests under GDPR.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 22 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 22(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Artikel 22 Rechtsvordering
Artikel 28 Rechtsvordering
Decision AuthorityGHAMS
Reviewed AuthorityRb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

Processing notes: national law identified, 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

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
Automatically normalized and classified

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

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: