Enforcement · Lithuanian Data Protection Authority (VDAI) EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

UAB VS FITNESS: Non-compliance with general data processing principles

The Lithuanian DPA (VDAI) has imposed a fine of EUR 20,000 on UAB VS FITNESS.

€20,000 Fine
UAB VS FITNESS
LITHUANIA
Art. 5 GDPR Art. 9 GDPR Art. 13 GDPR Art. 30 GDPR Art. 35 GDPR
DPIA Identification Controllers Types of Special Categories of Personal Data Personal Data
Jun 21, 2021 Source vdai.lrv.lt

Full text

The Lithuanian DPA (VDAI) has imposed a fine of EUR 20,000 on UAB VS FITNESS. After receiving a notification from an individual stating that scanning a fingerprint was necessary to use the services of a sports club owned by the controller, the DPA started an investigation against the controller. The DPA's review found that the consent given by customers to have their fingerprint patterns processed was not voluntary as there were no other identification measures. In addition, the DPA found that the controller also unlawfully processed employees' fingerprints. The controller also failed to set out for what purpose and on what legal basis it processed the employees' biometric data. It also did not conduct a data protection impact assessment and did not demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of the processing of the employees' fingerprints. Furthermore, the DPA finds that the controller did not comply with its information obligations pursuant to Art. 13 GDPR.

Industry: Industry and Commerce

How it connects

References

All 9

Related across sources

15625/2026 Cass.Civ. - 15625/2026 Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS, the controller) is the Italian National Institute for Social Security. In 2021, the DPA fined the controller €300,000 for its… Supreme Court May 21, 2026 Privacy by Design & Default Privacy by Design DPIA
C-60/22 UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland In Case C-60/22, the CJEU (Fifth Chamber) ruled on a preliminary reference from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden concerning UZ, a third-country national, and the Bundesrepublik… CJEU ·Fifth Chamber May 4, 2023 Right to Restriction Right to be Forgotten Personal Data
Opinion 11/2024 use of facial recognition to streamline airport passengers’ flow (compatibility with Articles 5(1)(e) and(f), 25 and 32 GDPR) A dopted Opinion 11/2024 on the use of facial recognition to streamline airport passengers’ flow (compatibility with Articles 5(1)(e) and(f), 25 and 32 GDPR Version 1.1 Adopted on… Opinion ·EDPB May 24, 2024 Biometric Data Identification Retention Period
C-169/23 Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság v UC In Case C-169/23, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) ruled on a preliminary reference from the Kúria (Hungary) concerning whether the Budapest Metropolitan… CJEU ·Third Chamber Nov 28, 2024 Personal Data Legitimate Interest Supervision
Guidelines 3/2019 processing of personal data through video devices Guidelines ·EDPB Jan 30, 2020 Personal Data Processing Material scope (GDPR)
Opinion 26/2018 draft list of the competent supervisory authority of Luxembourg regarding the processing operations subject to the requirement of a data protection impact assessment (Article 35.4 GDPR) 1 Adopted EDPB Plenary meeting, 04/05.12.2018 Opinion 26 /2018 on the draft list of the competent supervisory authority of Luxembourg regarding the processing operations subject… Opinion ·EDPB Dec 4, 2018 DPIA Supervision Supervisory Authorities
Related documents