News · noyb - European Center for Digital Rights 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.

€50 million fine for Google confirmed by French Court

Fines Lawful Basis Personal Data Consent Supervisory Authorities Lawfulness
Jun 19, 2020 Source

How it connects

Related across sources

Guidance Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) EDPB Guidance Guidelines 8/2022 on identifying a controller or processor's lead supervisory authority EDPB Enforcement SOPHIE ET VOILA, S.L: Insufficient legal basis for data processing Spanish Data Protection Authority (aepd) Enforcement APD/GBA (Belgium) - 115/2022 APD/GBA (Belgium) Guidance Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical implementation of amicable settlements EDPB Guidance Guidelines 01/2021 EDPB

Full text

Forced Consent & Consent Bypass Background. Following a complaint by noyb and a similar complaint by the French NGO “La Quadrature du Net” the CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority) imposed a 50 million euro fine on Google over the company’s opaque privacy policy and lack of legal basis for personalized ads. This is so far the highest fine adopted by a DPA as a final decision. Nevertheless it is well below the maximum fine under GDPR of 4% of the global turnover of Google (this would be € 3.7 billion). The CNIL’s decision focused mainly on two specific GDPR infringements: the lack of sufficient information on to the users and the lack of a legal basis for processing personal data for advertising purposes. Max Schrems, honorary chairman of noyb: “The amount is tiny for Google, but still an important symbol to show that GDPR fines can reach serious amounts". The decision was appealed by Google before the French Conseil d’Etat (the highest administrative court) on the grounds that th

Original document at the source noyb.eu

Similar Content