Who was sanctioned, and for what?

The debt collection company posted personal data of alleged debtors on the internet, some of it particularly sensitive, in order to obtain information on their whereabouts and to warn third parties. The Swiss Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, A-3891/2025) upheld the ruling of the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (EDÖB) of 28 April 2025, according to which this constitutes an unjustified violation of privacy.

Authority / court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (A-3891/2025) auf Verfügung des EDÖB vom 28.04.2025

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSG Art. 6, Art. 19, Art. 31

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

20 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The online retailer had not set a retention period for customer accounts and kept data until customers requested deletion; purchases were only possible with an account. The sanctions board of the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman imposed 856,000 EUR in 2024, the administrative court reduced the fine to 792,639 EUR on the basis of current turnover, and the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) confirmed this on 12 June 2026.

Authority / court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (KHO); Sanktionsgremium des Datenschutzbeauftragten

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

18 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Due to errors by a processor of the energy supplier, incorrect details of a direct debit mandate were recorded, so that three bills instead of one were debited from the customer's account; call recordings and the mandate form had not been retained. ZENITH responded inadequately to the access request and did not correct the data (100,000 EUR), while Piraeus Bank infringed the right of access (10,000 EUR and a reprimand); Decision No. 8/2026 of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority.

Authority / court

Αρχή Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα (Hellenic DPA)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. d, Art. 12 Abs. 3, Art. 15, Art. 28 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Walloon water utility recorded and listened in on customer calls for quality control and training purposes; the Litigation Chamber of the Autorité de protection des données (Belgian Data Protection Authority, APD/GBA) found infringements of transparency and fairness as well as in the engagement of a sub-processor. It imposed two fines totalling 86,000 EUR (85,000 + 1,000) after reducing the amounts in view of the situation of the public utility; an appeal against the decision has been lodged with the Market Court.

Authority / court

Autorité de protection des données (APD/GBA) – Chambre Contentieuse

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 12 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 28 Abs. 3

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Energy and utilities

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A person complained that Fitsypro had not responded to their request for access, rectification and erasure of November 2023. Three requests for information from the Datu valsts inspekcija (Latvian Data State Inspectorate, DVI) between 2024 and 2026 went unanswered, and nobody attended the hearing. The DVI imposed 1,500 EUR and requested the information by 21 April 2026.

Authority / court

Datu valsts inspekcija (DVI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 58 Abs. 1 lit. e, Art. 83 Abs. 5 lit. e DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A general practitioner who had no longer been treating the complainant since January 2023 accessed his health data (findings, prescriptions) on the national e-health platform EESZT a total of 47 times via his practice software until August 2024 and did not respond to an access request. The Hungarian data protection authority (Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, NAIH) found infringements of Art. 5(2), 6(1), 9(2), 12(2) and 15(1) GDPR, ordered compliance with the access request and imposed 500,000 HUF.

Authority / court

Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság (NAIH)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 2, 6 Abs. 1, 9 Abs. 2, 12 Abs. 2, 15 Abs. 1 (NAIH-273-7/2026)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Published

20 Mar 2026

Original amount 500,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

During a wave of boycotts in 2024, Loblaw did not process deletion requests in time and retained purchase and usage data from the loyalty programme (more than 17 million members) even after accounts were closed, without demonstrating effective anonymisation. Loblaw undertook to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) to have the anonymisation independently reviewed and to carry out annual deletions.

Authority / court

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

PIPEDA

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

5 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Despite repeated follow-ups by the trade union, the cleaning company did not respond to a union member’s access request and also failed to comply with the order of the Danish Data Protection Agency (Datatilsynet) to decide on the request. Datatilsynet reported the company; the case was closed on 2 March 2026 with a fine notice of 60,000 DKK.

Authority / court

Anklagemyndigheden (Bødeforelæg) auf Anzeige der Datatilsynet

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 15; Nichtbefolgung einer Anordnung der Datatilsynet; databeskyttelsesloven

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Original amount 60,000 DKK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Following six complaints, the Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto (Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman) found that the company did not provide a copy to customers who requested recordings of their sales calls in order to dispute invoices, offering only to let them listen via customer service, and in some cases deleted recordings. In addition to a reprimand, a fine of 5,000 EUR was imposed.

Authority / court

Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto – seuraamuskollegio (Datenschutzbeauftragter, Sanktionsgremium)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 15 Abs. 1 und 3

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

25 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Since 2019, the delivery platform had required scans or photos of its users’ identity cards and passports in cases of suspected fraud, relying on legitimate interests. The Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (President of Poland’s data protection authority, UODO) regarded this as processing without a legal basis and a breach of data minimisation, imposed 5,898,064 PLN and ordered the processing to stop and the data to be erased.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 1 DSGVO (DKN.5112.33.2022)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

16 Mar 2026

Original amount 5,898,064 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Feb 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

An estate agency (name not published) kept 11,887 brokerage contracts from 2010 to 2019, together with 914 copies of identity cards, passports and bank cards, without a legal basis, although the managing director stated that no card copies were collected. The Croatian data protection authority (Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka, AZOP) also criticised irregular and inadequate data protection training for employees and imposed 100,000 EUR (date of publication; exact date of the decision not stated).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (AZOP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c und e, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 32 Abs. 4 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

No damage to data subjects was found.

Published

19 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The agency conducted telephone pre-screening interviews with applicants on behalf of client companies, recorded them without valid consent, stored them indefinitely and presented itself as the client company in doing so. The Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 25,500 EUR (plus 2,550 EUR in costs) for lack of a legal basis and transparency; the company has lodged an appeal against the amount of the fine with the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht).

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, c und e, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 12, 13

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Other

Employees

Under 50

Mitigating circumstances

No relevant previous violations, cooperation in the proceedings; adjustment of the starting amount to the company's small size.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The mobile banking app of a bank (name not published) scanned the list of all installed applications on the Android and Huawei devices of 433,922 customers and stored it centrally – without a legal basis, without transparent information and without a data-minimising design. The Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (Croatian Personal Data Protection Agency, AZOP) imposed 1.5 million EUR; the decision is not final (date = publication).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (AZOP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 12, 13, 25 Abs. 2 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

18 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

On the Romanian marketplace publi24.ro, a fake advert appeared with photos and the telephone number of a woman, claiming that she offered sexual services. The Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, Case C-492/23) ruled that the operator is a controller within the meaning of the GDPR, must identify adverts containing sensitive data before publication and verify identity or consent, and cannot rely on the liability exemption of the E-Commerce Directive.

Authority / court

Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (Große Kammer), Rs. C-492/23

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO (Verantwortlicher, Art. 9, Art. 32); Richtlinie 2000/31/EG

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

2 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The operator of a sports facility rented a Bluetooth system with which swimmers were located in the pool via tags and their training was recorded. The Spanish data protection authority (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, AEPD) imposed 8,000 EUR for the processing of special categories of data and – after a 20% reduction for immediate payment – 4,000, 2,400 and 3,200 EUR for lack of a legal basis, insufficient information and a deficient impact assessment (17,600 EUR in total); the request for reconsideration was unsuccessful.

Authority / court

Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Mitigating circumstances

Partial immediate payment (20% reduction under Art. 85 LPACAP).

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Despite access requests, two patients did not receive copies of their scan files at the end of treatment; the practice responded only sluggishly to enquiries and did not attend an appointment with the supervisory authority. The Andmekaitse Inspektsioon (Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate, AKI) ordered disclosure under Art. 15(3) GDPR or a reasoned refusal and threatened a penalty payment of 2,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Andmekaitse Inspektsioon (AKI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

§ 56 Abs. 1 IKS; Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. c, Art. 12 Abs. 4, Art. 15 DSGVO

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A retail company (name not published) had advertising letters sent via service providers and, in several cases, failed for an extended period to respond in time to the data subject rights that recipients then asserted. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (HmbBfDI) imposed a fine of 195,000 EUR; the measure was published in the interim report of 30 September 2025 (exact date of the decision not stated).

Authority / court

Hamburgischer Beauftragter für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit (HmbBfDI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO (Betroffenenrechte)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

30 Sep 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The rural retail giant inadequately informed consumers and job applicants about their rights, offered no effective means of opting out of the sale and sharing of data (including no Global Privacy Control) and passed data on to third parties without the required contracts. An officer must certify compliance annually for four years, as required by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

Authority / court

California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

30 Sep 2025

Original amount 1,350,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Single Resolution Board (SRB) passed on pseudonymised comments from former Banco Popular shareholders to Deloitte without informing the data subjects; the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) considered this an infringement of the duty to inform. The Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-413/23 P) set aside the judgment of the General Court and clarified that the duty to inform is to be assessed from the controller's perspective at the time of collection; the case was referred back to the General Court.

Authority / court

Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union, Rs. C-413/23 P

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Verordnung (EU) 2018/1725 (Informationspflicht)

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Public sector

Published

4 Sep 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The instalment payment provider created customer profiles without a contract for persons who signed in via retailer checkouts, refused former customers the closure of their accounts and continued to send them transactional e-mails with advertising content. The Andmekaitse Inspektsioon (Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate, AKI) ordered transparent information, valid consent, erasure options under Art. 17 GDPR and the separation of transactional and advertising e-mails; a penalty payment of 5,000 EUR is threatened for each item not fulfilled.

Authority / court

Andmekaitse Inspektsioon (AKI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

§ 56 Abs. 1, § 58 Abs. 1 IKS; Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. d, Art. 4 Nr. 11, 5, 6, 7, 12–14, 17 DSGVO

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

For registration for the Public Services Card, the ministry created biometric facial templates of a large part of the population without a sufficiently clear legal basis, with deficient information and an incomplete data protection impact assessment. Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) issued a reprimand, imposed 550,000 EUR and ordered the biometric processing to be stopped within nine months if no valid legal basis is found.

Authority / court

Data Protection Commission (DPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und e, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 Abs. 7 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Public sector

Mitigating circumstances

No deficiencies were found in the technical and organisational security measures.

Published

12 Jun 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Although the platform operator had repeatedly confirmed to a customer that his e-mail addresses had been deleted, he continued to receive feedback requests; in addition, certain partners could see the address. The Romanian data protection authority (ANSPDCP) found breaches of transparency and erasure obligations, imposed 49,770 lei (10,000 EUR) and ordered, among other things, training of the staff responsible.

Authority / court

Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 12 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 17 und 19 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

24 Apr 2025

Original amount 49,770 RON, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Since 2008, Iberinform had obtained data on sole traders through a supply contract with Camerdata and used it to enrich its own files for commercial information services. The Spanish data protection authority (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, AEPD) found no legal basis for this and no information of the data subjects, and imposed 360,000 EUR for each (720,000 EUR in total) as well as an order to bring the processing into compliance; the request for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) was rejected.

Authority / court

Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Despite being asked to do so, a healthcare provider (name redacted) did not correct a patient’s address, so that health reports were sent to third parties, and used address data from the electoral register without a legal basis. The Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC) issued a reprimand, ordered rectification, erasure of the register data and the designation of a data protection officer, and imposed fines of 12,500, 5,000 and 2,500 EUR.

Authority / court

Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, 16, 37 Abs. 1 lit. c DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The housing finance corporation retained data of a former customer in its loan system beyond the permissible retention period because deletion there is only possible manually, record by record. The Επίτροπος Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα (Commissioner for Personal Data Protection) imposed 10,000 EUR and ordered erasure within 10 days as well as technical and organisational corrections within six months.

Authority / court

Επίτροπος Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα (Commissioner for Personal Data Protection)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. d und e, Art. 24 Abs. 1 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Honda required excessive information for opt-out requests, used a cookie tool without equivalent choices, made it harder to appoint authorised agents and passed data on to ad-tech firms without the required contracts. The order of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) requires, among other things, a simplified procedure and training for employees.

Authority / court

California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Automotive

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

12 Mar 2025

Original amount 632,500 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Mar 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

As part of a preventive review of the privacy policy on zoopasaule.lv, the Datu valsts inspekcija (Latvian Data State Inspectorate, DVI) repeatedly asked the online pet retailer for information from July 2024 onwards. The company let the first deadlines lapse, later twice asked for an extension citing the absence of its programmer, and still did not deliver thereafter. The DVI imposed 500 EUR for failure to cooperate with the supervisory authority.

Authority / court

Datu valsts inspekcija (DVI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 58 Abs. 1 lit. d und e, Art. 83 Abs. 5 lit. e DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From December 2023 to September 2024, Cembra answered 9 of 13 access requests after the 30-day deadline had expired, and responded to all 13 people only with standard letters instead of the data actually processed about them. The Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (Eidgenössischer Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragter, EDÖB) required the bank to provide the data subsequently.

Authority / court

Eidgenössischer Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragter (EDÖB)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSG Art. 25 Abs. 2 lit. b, Art. 25 Abs. 7

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

1 Jul 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Following 47 complaints, the Commission nationale pour la protection des données (Luxembourg data protection authority, CNPD) found that a Luxembourg credit institution (pseudonymised in the decision as ‘Société A’) had not responded to data subjects’ requests on time; the CNPD did not accept the reference to the COVID-19 pandemic. It issued a reprimand (rappel à l’ordre) and imposed 175,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Commission nationale pour la protection des données (CNPD) – formation restreinte

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 12 Abs. 3 und 4

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Between 2018 and 2020, Netflix did not adequately inform customers about what happens to their data, and the information available was partly unclear. The Dutch supervisory authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, AP) imposed 4.75 million EUR; Netflix has since revised its privacy statement.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a i. V. m. Art. 12 Abs. 1, Art. 13 Abs. 1 lit. c, e, f und Abs. 2 lit. a, Art. 15 Abs. 1 lit. a, c, d und Abs. 2 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

The privacy statement and the information provided were subsequently improved.

Published

18 Dec 2024

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Customers who ordered, for example, mail forwarding automatically received an electronic OmaPosti mailbox that could not be deselected separately; they were also informed insufficiently and in part incorrectly about the activation. The sanctions board of the Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto (Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman) found no contractual legal basis for this bundling and imposed 2.4 million EUR together with a reprimand and an order to rectify the situation. On 3 November 2025 the Helsinki Administrative Court upheld the reprimand and the order on account of the insufficient information but annulled the fine, as it considered the processing necessary for the contract on Posti’s electronic services.

Authority / court

Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto – seuraamuskollegio (Datenschutzbeauftragter, Sanktionsgremium)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. b, Art. 13, Art. 25

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

overturned

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Published

15 Nov 2024

Amount in EUR; no ECB reference rate is available for this currency.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Untold SRL left an access request and an erasure request from a data subject unanswered, even though the data subject had provided all contact details. The Romanian data protection authority (ANSPDCP) imposed 49,741 lei (10,000 EUR) in respect of access and 24,870.5 lei (5,000 EUR) in respect of erasure and ordered staff training. Date = publication of the press release; according to the authority, the investigation was concluded in the previous month.

Authority / court

Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 12 Abs. 3 und 4, Art. 15, Art. 17 Abs. 1 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

30 Oct 2024

Original amount 74,611.5 RON, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Oct 2024.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Acting on complaints from France and Poland, the Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija (Lithuanian State Data Protection Inspectorate, VDAI) found that the second-hand platform rejected erasure requests when users did not state a ‘specific reason’ under Art. 17 GDPR, throttled users without their knowledge through ‘shadow banning’ and could not demonstrate how it handled access requests. Fine of 2,385,276 EUR. Source: archived copy of the press release.

Authority / court

Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija (VDAI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 12 Abs. 1 und 4 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

3 Jul 2024

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In 2019, the antivirus manufacturer passed pseudonymised browsing histories of around 100 million users to its subsidiary Jumpshot, which sold insights into online behaviour to marketing clients. The data declared as anonymous allowed re-identification and users were misinformed; the Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů (Czech data protection authority, ÚOOÚ) imposed a final fine of 351 million CZK.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů (ÚOOÚ)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO (unrechtmäßige Verarbeitung, Transparenz), One-Stop-Shop-Verfahren

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

15 Apr 2024

Original amount 351,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Apr 2024.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The data broker processed data obtained from third-party sources (including the companies register) on a large scale and over a long period without proactively informing the data subjects; access requests were answered incompletely and the record of processing activities had gaps. The Autorité de protection des données (Belgian Data Protection Authority, APD) imposed three fines totalling 174,640 EUR and prohibited, among other things, the ‘Data Quality’ service until data subjects had been informed; on 4 September 2024 the Brussels Market Court set aside the orders and reduced the fines by 10% to a total of 157,176 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorité de protection des données (APD/GBA) – Chambre Contentieuse

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO – Rechtmäßigkeit, Fairness und Transparenz, Auskunftsrecht, Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Mitigating circumstances

Discontinuation of the ‘Data Delivery’ service and destruction of the CMX consumer database.

Published

16 Jan 2024

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report