CAIXABANK S.A. – €200,000 Fine (Spain, 2025)

€200,000Agencia Española de Protección de Datos5 June 2025Spain
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.

A data subject filed a complaint with the DPA against CAIXABANK S.A. (a bank, the controller) on 16 January 2023. According to the data subject, the controller contacted them to inform them of changes to their privacy policy, and that they would receive further correspondence requesting consent to send them personalised advertising. This was done despite the fact that the data subject was not a client. The data subject requested access to their personal data and asked the controller how it obtained their data. The data subject then learned that the controller had obtained the data from a previous mortgage contract they had with the bank, who had continued to process this data. The DPA initially dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the data subject was a client, as their data was in the controller’s database. The data subject filed an internal appeal, arguing that they were no longer a client, and that their contract with the controller had terminated in 2008. The DPA upheld the appeal on 20 March 2024, and began sanctioning proceedings on 7 June 2024. The controller argued that it did not violate the principle of storage limitation, as the contract with the data subject allowed the controller to retain the data until 2030. Therefore, processing the data was lawful under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. The data subject terminated their mortgage contract with the controller in 2008, meaning the controller had retained their data for almost 16 years. The DPA considered that the controller had stored the data for an excessive period, and therefore violated the principle of storage limitation. The DPA fined the controller €200,000. The DPA considered it a serious violation, due to the long storage period as well as the four previous fines the DPA had imposed on the controller for other GDPR violations.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

Art. 65 LOPDGDD
Source verified 6 March 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
date discrepancy
Full Legal Summary

A data subject filed a complaint with the DPA against CAIXABANK S.A. (a bank, the controller) on 16 January 2023. According to the data subject, the controller contacted them to inform them of changes to their privacy policy, and that they would receive further correspondence requesting consent to send them personalised advertising. This was done despite the fact that the data subject was not a client. The data subject requested access to their personal data and asked the controller how it obtained their data. The data subject then learned that the controller had obtained the data from a previous mortgage contract they had with the bank, who had continued to process this data. The DPA initially dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the data subject was a client, as their data was in the controller’s database. The data subject filed an internal appeal, arguing that they were no longer a client, and that their contract with the controller had terminated in 2008. The DPA upheld the appeal on 20 March 2024, and began sanctioning proceedings on 7 June 2024. The controller argued that it did not violate the principle of storage limitation, as the contract with the data subject allowed the controller to retain the data until 2030. Therefore, processing the data was lawful under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. The data subject terminated their mortgage contract with the controller in 2008, meaning the controller had retained their data for almost 16 years. The DPA considered that the controller had stored the data for an excessive period, and therefore violated the principle of storage limitation. The DPA fined the controller €200,000. The DPA considered it a serious violation, due to the long storage period as well as the four previous fines the DPA had imposed on the controller for other GDPR violations.

Details

Fine Date

5 June 2025

Authority

Agencia Española de Protección de Datos

Fine Amount

€200,000

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-9452

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. CAIXABANK S.A. - Spain (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: