News

Corrected and added some links, removed duplicate in short summary. }}}} An DPA denied a complaint against a public body under Articles 9 and 77 GDPR, holding that publication of a data subject’s political donation did not violate the GDPR because the controller had a lawful basis.An DPA denied a complaint against a public body under [[Article 9 GDPR|Articles 9]] and [[Article 77 GDPR|77 GDPR]], holding that publication of a data subject’s political donation did not violate them because the cont

|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=16.07.2025|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=16.07.2025 |Appeal_From_Status=|Appeal_From_Status= |Appeal_From_Link=https://www.dataprotection.ro/?page=Comunicat_Presa_16.07.2025|Appeal_From_Link=https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=ANSPDCP_(Romania)_-_Fine_against_a_Romanian_politician |Appeal_To_Body=|Appeal_To_Body= |Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name= A politician, the operator of a website (the controller), appealed a DPA decision sanctioning him fo

The controller claimed it relied on the soft opt-in in Regulation 22(3) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR), where an organisation may send direct marketing communications to its customers even if they did not specifically consent to electronic mail. However, only the organisation that collected the contact details can rely on the soft opt-in rule. The controller claimed it relied on the soft opt-in in Regulation 22(3) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications

Contact details: typo The controller's contact details are necessary for the data subjects to get in touch with the controller and to further exercise their rights under the GDPR. The contact details must enable data subjects to easily contact the controller and should include different forms of communications.The controller's contact details are necessary for the data subjects to get in touch with the controller and to further exercise their rights under the GDPR. The contact details

English Summary }}}} A court awarded €3,000 to a data subject after finding a news portal violated her privacy under [[Article 5 GDPR]] by publishing her personal data unnecessarily and disproportionately, despite claims of public interest.A court awarded €3,000 in damages to a data subject after finding that a news portal violated her right to privacy by publishing her personal data unnecessarily and disproportionately in two articles, despite the controller’s claims of public interest. == Engl

Brussels, 18 February - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted a report on its Coordinated Enforcement Framework (CEF) action on the right to be forgotten (Art.17 GDPR). The Board selected this topic as it is one of the most frequently exercised GDPR rights and one about which DPAs frequently receive complaints from individuals. The main objectives of this coordinated action are to ensure that the right to erasure is effectively exercised by individuals in Europe and understand ho

}}}} The DPA partially upheld a complaint and issued a reprimand against a travel company for unlawful direct marketing, excessive passport copy collection, inaccuracies in travel documents, lack of transparency, and an incomplete access response.The DPA partially upheld a complaint and issued a reprimand against a travel company for unlawful direct marketing, excessive passport copy collection, inaccuracies in travel documents, lack of transparency, and an incomplete response to an access reque

}}}} A court held that a former employee cannot receive access to their work email correspondence and files based on an access request when the emails and files only contain the employee’s identification information.A court held that a former employee cannot request access to their work email correspondence and other work-related files when the emails and files only contain the employee’s identification information. == English Summary ==== English Summary == Following his dismissal, the data sub

}}}} The DPA ordered a company to erase the data provided by potential tenants after not entering into a lease agreement with them.The DPA ordered a landlord to erase the data provided by potential tenants after not entering into a lease agreement with them. == English Summary ==== English Summary == In 2023 the data subjects intended to enter into a lease agreement with a company (the controller). The controller requested various information from the data subjects, including identity documents,

}}}} The DPA issued a warning to the Federal Public Service for Finances to ensure compliance with security of personal data processing after an employee accessed the address of an individual and visited her at her home.The DPA issued a warning to the Federal Public Service for Finances after an employee unlawfully accessed the address of an individual in the controller’s database and visited her at her home. == English Summary ==== English Summary ==

Facts The first article reported on payments related to the football club Dinamo Zagreb and included the data subject’s full name, bank account number, and payment amounts. The second article referred to the first article via a hyperlink but did not mention the data subject directly.The first article reported on payments related to the football club Dinamo Zagreb and included the data subject’s full name, bank account number, and payment amounts. The second article referred to the first article

English Summary The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) investigated Vodafone España, S.A.U. as controller after a SIM swapping incident.The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) investigated Vodafone España, S.A.U. as controller after a SIM swapping incident. On 21 September 2021, an unknown third party requested a duplicate SIM card for the mobile line of a data subject. The request was made through Vodafone’s internal telephone support channel for retail stores. The caller impersonated staf

Facts: typo The Local Territorial Agency for Residential Housing (Azienda territoriale per l’edilizia residenziale) submitted a complaint to the DPA regarding the installation of security cameras by the business “Macelleria La Costata s.r.l.s.”, a local butcher . The Local Territorial Agency for Residential Housing (Azienda territoriale per l’edilizia residenziale) submitted a complaint to the DPA regarding the installation of security cameras by the business “Macelleria La Costata s.r.l.s.”, a

Link fixed. === Facts ====== Facts === The data subject had a mobile contract with the controller, a telecommunications company, starting 17 April 2019. The contract included privacy notices stating that personal data, including contract initiation, execution, and completion (“positive data”), could be sent to a credit scoring agency for credit scoring, under Articles 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(f) GDPR.The data subject had a mobile contract with the controller, a telecommunications company, starting 17 Ap

Fixed a link. }}}} A court held that a public authority violated Article 12(3) and [[Article 15 GDPR#1|Article 15(1) GDPR]] by failing to respond within one month to an access request and by wrongly requiring a reference date.A court held that a public authority violated [[Article 12 GDPR|Article 12(3)]] and [[Article 15 GDPR#1|Article 15(1) GDPR]] by failing to respond within one month to an access request and by wrongly requiring a reference date. == English Summary ==== English Summary == The

Facts }}}} The DPA fined a business support company with 80,000 euros for transferring personal data from its employees to a third party without the proper legal basis, in violation of Art. 6 (1) GDPR.The DPA fined a customer support provider €80,000 for unlawfully transferring its employees’ private phone numbers to its business customer without a valid legal basis. == English Summary ==== English Summary == === Facts ====== Facts === MAJOREL SP SOLUTIONS, S.A. (the controller) entered into an

Facts The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) investigated Vodafone España, S.A.U. as controller after a SIM swapping incident.The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) investigated Vodafone España, S.A.U. as controller after a SIM swapping incident. On 21 September 2021, an unknown third party requested a duplicate SIM card for the mobile line of a data subject. The request was made through Vodafone’s internal telephone support channel for retail stores. The caller impersonated staff of an au

English Summary }}}} The DPA fined the Polish national postal operator €232k for a DPO conflict of interest. The DPO concurrently served as a Security Director and company proxy, effectively monitoring their own decisions regarding the means of data processing.The DPA fined the national postal operator €232,000 for appointing a DPO with a conflict of interest. The DPO concurrently served as a Security Director and representative of the controller, effectively monitoring their own decisions regar

Facts }}}} The court held that under [[Article 15 GDPR#3|Article 15(3) GDPR]] controllers may lawfully redact third-party data as long as the data subject’s information remains complete and understandable.A court held that under [[Article 15 GDPR#3|Article 15(3) GDPR]] controllers may lawfully redact third-party data as long as the data subject’s information remains complete and understandable. == English Summary ==== English Summary == The data subject was subject to a home visit by the public

Vaste link: De verantwoordelijke partij reageerde niet adequaat en verstrekte onduidelijke informatie of verwees de betrokkene naar derden. Hierdoor heeft de betrokkene een klacht ingediend bij de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens. De verantwoordelijke partij reageerde niet adequaat en verstrekte onduidelijke informatie of verwees de betrokkene naar derden. Hierdoor heeft de betrokkene een klacht ingediend bij de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens. De Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens heeft een definitief besluit uitgevaardigd waarin de verantwoordelijke partij wordt gewaarschuwd voor het overtreden van artikel 6(1) van de AVG en artikel 5(1).

Fixed Link The controller did not respond adequately, providing unclear information or referring the data subject to third parties. As a result, the data subject lodged a complaint with the DPA.The controller did not respond adequately, providing unclear information or referring the data subject to third parties. As a result, the data subject lodged a complaint with the DPA. The DPA issued a final decision warning the controller for violating [[Article 6(1) GDPR|Article 6(1)]] and [[Article 5(1)

English Summary }}}} A court awarded €3,500 to a data subject after a bank mistakenly sent her financial data to another client, finding that the disclosure unlawfully violated her right to privacy and caused non-material harm.A court awarded €3,500 to a data subject after a bank mistakenly sent her financial data to another client, finding that the disclosure unlawfully violated her right to privacy and caused non-material damages. == English Summary ==== English Summary == === Holding ====== H

Nederlands Samenvatting: Een rechtbank heeft €3.500 toegekend aan een persoon wiens financiële gegevens per ongeluk door een bank aan een andere klant zijn verzonden. De rechtbank oordeelde dat deze onrechtmatige openbaarmaking een schending vormde van het recht op privacy van de persoon en dat er sprake was van immateriële schade. Nederlands Samenvatting: Een rechtbank heeft €3.500 toegekend aan een persoon wiens financiële gegevens per ongeluk door een bank aan een andere klant zijn verzonden. De rechtbank oordeelde dat deze onrechtmatige openbaarmaking een schending vormde van het recht op privacy van de persoon en dat er sprake was van immateriële schade. == Nederlands Samenvatting == Nederlands Samenvatting == === Conclusie ======

Summary: A court has awarded €3,500 to a person whose financial data was accidentally sent to another customer by a bank. The court ruled that this unauthorized disclosure constituted a violation of the person's right to privacy and that non-pecuniary damages were involved. Summary: A court has awarded €3,500 to a person whose financial data was accidentally sent to another customer by a bank. The court ruled that this unauthorized disclosure constituted a violation of the person's right to privacy and that non-pecuniary damages were involved. == Summary == Summary == === Conclusion ======

=== Processing ====== Processing === The dispute concerned the processor's responsibility for implementing adequate security measures, as required by Article 32 of the GDPR. The dispute concerned the processor's responsibility for implementing adequate security measures, as required by Article 32 of the GDPR. "Regarding the fairness of the procedure:" "Regarding the fairness of the procedure:" "Regarding responsibilities:" "Regarding responsibilities:"

}}}} The DPA imposed a fine of €400,000 on Verisure Italy for unlawful marketing communications. The controller lacked a valid legal basis for marketing activities towards both former and prospective clients, failed to properly inform data subjects, applied excessive or indeterminate retention periods, and responded late to data subject rights requests.The DPA imposed a fine of €400,000 on Verisure Italy, a provider of alarm systems, for unlawful marketing communications. The controller lacked a

Facts: The data protection authority (DPA) has fined a bank €500,000 after documents belonging to a customer were lost during delivery by a courier service. The authority ruled that the bank had not ensured adequate security measures and proper oversight of the service provider, in accordance with Article 32 of the GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €500,000 on a bank because customer documents were lost during transport via a courier service. The DPA determined that the bank had not provided sufficient security and adequate oversight of the service provider, in accordance with Article 32 of the GDPR. Summary in English: A bank was fined €500,000 by the data protection authority because customer documents were lost during delivery by a courier service. The authority found that the bank had failed to implement adequate security measures and proper oversight of the service provider, violating Article 32 of the GDPR.

=== Feiten ====== Feiten === DEEZER (de verantwoordelijke) heeft de Franse gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (CNIL) geïnformeerd over een datalek dat 21.574.775 gebruikers heeft getroffen, waarvan 9.849.354 gebruikers zich in Frankrijk bevonden. DEEZER heeft Mobius Solutions Ltd (de verwerker) geïdentificeerd als de waarschijnlijke bron van het datalek. De gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit heeft een onderzoek naar de verwerker gestart. DEEZER (de verantwoordelijke) heeft de Franse gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (CNIL) geïnformeerd over een datalek dat ongeveer 46.900.000 gebruikers wereldwijd heeft getroffen, waarvan 21.574.775 gebruikers zich in Frankrijk bevonden.

}}}} De gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (DPA) heeft een verwerker een boete van 1 miljoen euro opgelegd vanwege het niet verwijderen van de persoonlijke gegevens van gebruikers, het verwerken van die gegevens voor doeleinden die in strijd zijn met de contractuele afspraken, en het niet bijhouden van een registratie van de verwerkingsactiviteiten. De gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (DPA) heeft een verwerker een boete van 1.000.000 euro opgelegd vanwege het niet verwijderen van de persoonlijke gegevens van gebruikers, het verwerken van die gegevens voor doeleinden die in strijd zijn met de contractuele afspraken, en het niet bijhouden van een registratie van de verwerkingsactiviteiten. == Samenvatting in het Engels == == Samenvatting in het Engels == Tot slot heeft de DPA geconstateerd dat...

}}}} The DPA fined a processor €1 million for failing to delete the personal data of users, processing it for purposes contrary to contract stipulations and for failing to keep a record of its processing activities.The DPA fined a processor €1,000,000 for failing to delete the personal data of users, processing the data for purposes contrary to contract stipulations, and for failing to keep a record of its processing activities. == English Summary ==== English Summary == Finally, the DPA found t

Facts }}}} The DPA fined a bank €500,000 after it lost a customer’s documents sent through a courier. The authority held that the bank failed to ensure adequate security and proper supervision of its processor under [[Article 32 GDPR|Article 32 GDPR]].The DPA fined a bank €500,000 for losing a customer’s documents when transporting them via a courier. The DPA held that the bank failed to ensure adequate security and proper supervision of its processor under [[Article 32 GDPR]]. == English Summar

Permanent link: The responsible party did not respond adequately and provided unclear information or referred the individual to third parties. As a result, the individual filed a complaint with the Data Protection Authority. The responsible party did not respond adequately and provided unclear information or referred the individual to third parties. As a result, the individual filed a complaint with the Data Protection Authority. The Data Protection Authority has issued a final decision in which the responsible party is warned for violating Article 6(1) of the GDPR and Article 5(1).

}}}} De Italiaanse beschermingsautoriteit (DPA) heeft Verisure Italy een boete van 400.000 euro opgelegd voor onrechtmatige marketingcommunicatie. De verantwoordelijke partij had geen geldige juridische basis voor marketingactiviteiten gericht aan zowel bestaande als potentiële klanten, heeft gegevensonderwerpen niet voldoende geïnformeerd, heeft onredelijk lange of onbepaalde bewaartermijnen toegepast en heeft te laat gereageerd op verzoeken van gegevensonderwerpen met betrekking tot hun rechten. De DPA heeft Verisure Italy, een leverancier van alarmsystemen, een boete van 400.000 euro opgelegd voor onrechtmatige marketingcommunicatie. De verantwoordelijke partij had een...

The data protection authority (DPA) has imposed a fine of 1 million euros on a data processor for failing to delete user personal data, processing that data for purposes that conflict with contractual agreements, and failing to maintain a record of processing activities. The data protection authority (DPA) has imposed a fine of €1,000,000 on a data processor for failing to delete user personal data, processing that data for purposes that conflict with contractual agreements, and failing to maintain a record of processing activities. Finally, the DPA found that...

|Hof_Oorspronkelijke_Naam=Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main|Hof_Oorspronkelijke_Naam=Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main |Hof_Engelse_Naam=Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main|Hof_Engelse_Naam=Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main |Hof_Met_Land=OLG Frankfurt am Main (Duitsland)|Hof_Met_Land=OLG Frankfurt (Duitsland) |Zaaknummer_Naam=6 U 81/23|Zaaknummer_Naam=6 U 81/23 |Partij_Link_2=|Partij_Link_2= |Beroep_Van_Instantie=LG Frankfurt am Main (Duitsland)|Beroep_Van_Instantie=LG Frankfurt (Duitsland)

=== Facts ====== Facts === DEEZER (the data controller) has informed the French data protection authority (CNIL) about a data breach that affected 21,574,775 users, of whom 9,849,354 were located in France. DEEZER has identified Mobius Solutions Ltd (the data processor) as the likely source of the data breach. The data protection authority has launched an investigation into the data processor. DEEZER (the data controller) has informed the French data protection authority (CNIL) about a data breach that affected approximately 46,900,000 users worldwide, of whom 21,574,775 were located in France.

}}}} Het gerecht heeft €100 aan immateriële schade toegekend naar aanleiding van een grootschalig datalek dat een sociaal netwerk trof. Hoewel de schade als gering werd beschouwd, oordeelde het gerecht dat de ongeautoriseerde koppeling en openbare verspreiding van het telefoonnummer van de betrokkene met andere profielgegevens resulteerde in een verlies van controle over persoonlijke gegevens, wat op zichzelf al een vergoeding waardige immateriële schade vormde. Het gerecht heeft €100 aan immateriële schade toegekend naar aanleiding van een grootschalig datalek.

=== Verwerking ====== Verwerking === Het geschil betrof de verantwoordelijkheid van de verwerker voor het implementeren van adequate beveiligingsmaatregelen, zoals vereist volgens artikel 32 van de AVG. Het geschil betrof de verantwoordelijkheid van de verwerker voor het implementeren van adequate beveiligingsmaatregelen, zoals vereist volgens artikel 32 van de AVG. "Over de eerlijkheid van de procedure:" "Over de eerlijkheid van de procedure:" "Over verantwoordelijkheden:" "Over verantwoordelijkheden:"

}}}} The court has awarded €100 in non-pecuniary damages following a large-scale data breach that affected a social network. While the damage was considered minor, the court ruled that the unauthorized linking and public dissemination of the individual's phone number with other profile data resulted in a loss of control over personal data, which in itself constituted non-pecuniary damage worthy of compensation. The court has awarded €100 in non-pecuniary damages following a large-scale data breach.

=== Facts ====== Facts === DEEZER (the controller) notified the French DPA (CNIL) of a data breach affecting 21,574,775 users, out of which 9,849,354 users were located in France. The controller identified Mobius Solutions Ltd (the processor) as the likely source of the data breach. The DPA launched an investigation into the processor.DEEZER (the controller) notified the French DPA (CNIL) of a data breach affecting approximately 46,900,000 users worldwide, out if which 21,574,775 users located i

|Court_Original_Name=Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main|Court_Original_Name=Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main |Court_English_Name=Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main|Court_English_Name=Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main |Court_With_Country=OLG Frankfurt am Main (Germany)|Court_With_Country=OLG Frankfurt (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=6 U 81/23|Case_Number_Name=6 U 81/23 |Party_Link_2=|Party_Link_2= |Appeal_From_Body=LG Frankfurt am Main (Germany)|Appeal_From_Body=LG Frankfurt (Germany)

=== Holding ====== Holding === The dispute related to the processor’s responsibility for implementing adequate security measures, under article 32 GDPR. The dispute related to the processor’s responsibility for implementing adequate security measures, under Article 32 GDPR. '''On the fairness of the procedure:''' '''On the fairness of the procedure:''' '''About responsibilities:''' '''About r

Feiten: De gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (DPA) heeft een bank een boete van 500.000 euro opgelegd nadat documenten van een klant, verzonden via een koerier, verloren waren gegaan. De autoriteit oordeelde dat de bank er niet voor had gezorgd dat er voldoende beveiliging was en dat er een goede controle was op de dienstverlener, in overeenstemming met artikel 32 van de AVG. De DPA heeft een bank een boete van 500.000 euro opgelegd omdat documenten van een klant verloren waren gegaan tijdens het transport via een koerier. De DPA oordeelde dat de bank niet had gezorgd voor voldoende beveiliging en een goede controle op de dienstverlener, in overeenstemming met artikel 32 van de AVG. == Samenvatting in het Engels

}}}} The Court awarded €100 in non-material damages following a large-scale scraping incident affecting a social network. Although the impairment was considered minor, the Court held that the unauthorised linking and public dissemination of the data subject’s telephone number with other profile data resulted in a loss of control over personal data, which in itself constituted compensable non-material damage.A Court awarded €100 in non-material damages following a large-scale scraping incident af

Een betrokkene wenste om op een genderneutrale manier aangesproken te worden en stelde dat twee bedrijven (de verantwoordelijke partijen) in hun profielinstellingen, op tickets en in trein aankondigingen een verkeerd gender gebruikten. De betrokkene stuurde aanvankelijk een bericht via Twitter naar een van de betrokken verantwoordelijke partijen, waarin hij vroeg of er genderneutrale opties beschikbaar zouden zijn.

}}}} The DPA fined a company €1 million for failing to delete the personal data of users, processing it for purposes contrary to contract stipulations and for failing to keep a record of its processing activities.The DPA fined a subcontractor €1 million for failing to delete the personal data of users, processing it for purposes contrary to contract stipulations and for failing to keep a record of its processing activities. == English Summary ==== English Summary == === Facts ====== Facts === DE

Facts === Facts ====== Facts === An Assistant Professor (the data subject) requested access to the content of evaluation reports by independent reviewers and letters of recommendation prepared during the academic promotion procedure from the University of Cyprus (the controller).An assistant professor (the data subject) requested access to the content of evaluation reports by independent reviewers and letters of recommendation prepared during the academic promotion procedure from the University

On 2 November and 10 November 2022, data subjects using the portal reported to the controller that they had access to files relating to other data subjects. On 2 November and 10 November 2022, data subjects using the portal reported to the controller that they had access to files relating to other data subjects. On 22 November 2022, the controller notified the data breach to the DPA. On 22 November 2022, the controller notified the data breach to the DPA. The breach was found to be due to a conf

Links naar de artikelen === Feiten ====== Feiten === Een softwareadviesbureau (de verwerker) heeft een overheidsinstantie (de verantwoordelijke) software geleverd voor de verwerking van bestanden met betrekking tot personen met een handicap. Deze software stelde gebruikers (betrokkenen) in staat om hun bestanden te uploaden en hun voortgang te volgen via een online portaal. Nextpublica, een softwareadviesbureau (de verwerker), heeft de Maison Départementale pour les Personnes Handicapées (MDPH), een organisatie met een maatschappelijke doelstelling (de verantwoordelijke), voorzien van...

A university lecturer (the complainant) has requested access to the content of evaluation reports from independent reviewers and letters of recommendation that were prepared during the doctoral promotion process, from the University of Cyprus (the responsible party). A university lecturer (the complainant) has requested access to the content of evaluation reports from independent reviewers and letters of recommendation that were prepared during the doctoral promotion process, from the University of Cyprus (the responsible party).