ALDI MAGYARORSZÁG ÉLELMISZER Élelmiszer Kereskedelmi Betéti Társaság – €200,000 Fine (Hungary, 2024)

€200,000Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság2 July 2024Hungary
final
Fine

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.

The controller, a supermarket company, conducted verifications about the age of customers wanting to buy alcoholic beverages. In addition to asking for an ID card, in some shops the controller also recorded the date of birth of the data subjects, while in other shops it did not. Moreover, another complaint concerned the fact that the controller asked elderly data subjects for an ID, even though it was evident that they were not under 18. Finally, according to the data subjects, no information under Article 13 GDPR was not provided to them. Therefore, they could not know which was the legal basis and the duration of the processing. For these reasons, several data subjects filed a complaint with the DPA. First, the DPA found that the data subjects were not able to have sufficient information about the processing at hand, since no sign was put in the controller’s shops. Moreover, the staff were not able to provide more information or to inform the data subjects where to find more information about the data processing. Furthermore, the DPA noted that the practices varied between the stores. Therefore, the DPA held that the information provided by the controller was insufficient, not easily accessible and not transparent. As a consequence, it found a violation of Article 5(1)(a), 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA noted that Article 16/A(4) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1997 ([https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/1997-155-00-00.44 1997. évi CLV. Törvény a fogyasztóvédelemről]) requires alcohol sellers to ask for an ID card only when they are in doubt that the buyer could be under 18 years old. When this doubt does not exist, like in the case of a 70-year-old man, this obligation does not apply. Therefore, the controller could not rely on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. As a consequence, the DPA found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR. Thirdly, the DPA found that recording the date of birth in the cash register system violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Indeed, the DPA considere

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 13(1) GDPR
Art. 13(2) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 13 GDPR
Art. 32 GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

Art. 16/A(4) Consumer Protection Act of 1997
Source verified 6 March 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
amount discrepancy
Full Legal Summary

The controller, a supermarket company, conducted verifications about the age of customers wanting to buy alcoholic beverages. In addition to asking for an ID card, in some shops the controller also recorded the date of birth of the data subjects, while in other shops it did not. Moreover, another complaint concerned the fact that the controller asked elderly data subjects for an ID, even though it was evident that they were not under 18. Finally, according to the data subjects, no information under Article 13 GDPR was not provided to them. Therefore, they could not know which was the legal basis and the duration of the processing. For these reasons, several data subjects filed a complaint with the DPA. First, the DPA found that the data subjects were not able to have sufficient information about the processing at hand, since no sign was put in the controller’s shops. Moreover, the staff were not able to provide more information or to inform the data subjects where to find more information about the data processing. Furthermore, the DPA noted that the practices varied between the stores. Therefore, the DPA held that the information provided by the controller was insufficient, not easily accessible and not transparent. As a consequence, it found a violation of Article 5(1)(a), 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA noted that Article 16/A(4) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1997 ([https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/1997-155-00-00.44 1997. évi CLV. Törvény a fogyasztóvédelemről]) requires alcohol sellers to ask for an ID card only when they are in doubt that the buyer could be under 18 years old. When this doubt does not exist, like in the case of a 70-year-old man, this obligation does not apply. Therefore, the controller could not rely on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. As a consequence, the DPA found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR. Thirdly, the DPA found that recording the date of birth in the cash register system violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Indeed, the DPA considere

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for ALDI MAGYARORSZÁG ÉLELMISZER Élelmiszer Kereskedelmi Betéti Társaság in HU

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Fine Date

2 July 2024

Authority

Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

Fine Amount

€200,000

80,000,000 HUF

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-8237

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. ALDI MAGYARORSZÁG ÉLELMISZER Élelmiszer Kereskedelmi Betéti Társaság - Hungary (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: