HDPA (Greece) - 5/2023: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:50, 5 April 2023

HDPA - 5/2023

Authority:	HDPA (Greece)
Jurisdiction:	Greece
Relevant Law:	Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Article 6(4) GDPR Article 13 GDPR
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:
Decided:	02.02.2023
Published:	30.03.2023
Fine:	10.000 EUR
Parties:	Vodafone
National Case Number/Name:	5/2023
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	Greek
Original Source:	HDPA (in EL)
Initial Contributor:	Anastasia Vlachopoulou

Vodafone transfers personal data from its customers to an advertising company without prior consent and HDPA imposes a fine of 10.000 euros.

English Summary

Facts

After requesting the provision of mobile telephony service to the controller - Vodafone, the data subject received a package with product samples at home. The package was sent by one of the controller's partner advertising company. Dissatisfied, the data subject filed a complaint with the HDPA, claiming that they had explicitly opposed the use of their personal data for advertising purposes.

In response, the controller argued that the package was not sent for advertising purposes, but rather as an additional service to the mobile telephony requested by the data subject. According to the controller, the purpose of this extra service would be to reward new customers, who receive gifts regardless of their preferences in terms of promotions. In addition, the controller alleged that its customers are informed about this extra service through banner on its website.

Holding

The HDPA dismissed the controller's allegations and held that the transfer of personal data to the partner company had advertising purposes. It highlighted that consumers, when providing their personal data to contract a telephone service, do not expect that such data will be used for other purposes. In the case under analysis, such an expectation was explicitly expressed, as the data subject opposed the use of his data for advertising purposes. For this reason, the HDPA found a violation of the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency established in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR.

Moreover, the HDPA found a violation of Article 13 GDPR, since the controller did not correctly inform data subjects that the simple request for a telephone service would imply the contracting of additional services.

As part of the exercise of its powers, the DPA imposed a fine of 10.000 euros on the data controller and ordered it to adapt its practice accordingly.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the Greek original. Please refer to the Greek original for more details.

Summary
The Authority examined a complaint from a subscriber who, after applying for a new Vodafone connection, received from an advertising company collaborating with Vodafone a parcel with samples of consumer products, despite his opposition to the use of his data for commercial promotion purposes. According to Vodafone, the sending of the parcel was not a promotional action, but an incidental provision of the telecommunications services contract already drawn up between the parties, which is sent to all, without exception, new subscribers who register through the website www.vodafonecu.gr, regardless of the their choices regarding promotional actions, while relevant information is provided via a banner posted on the website in question.

The Authority considered that the transmission to an advertising company and the related processing of the complainant's data was done for the purpose of promotion, in violation of the principle of legality, objectivity and transparency of the processing, because it was not necessary for the purpose of the contract nor was it reasonably expected for the subject, who had expressly objected to the use and transmission of his data for promotional purposes while it was not proven that the complainant had been fully informed in accordance with Article 13 GDPR about the processing in question. Vodafone was fined 10,000 euros and ordered to adapt its practice regarding the additional benefits in question in order to provide the subjects with full information and the possibility to object.

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 }}
-Vodafone transfers personal data from its customers to an advertising company without prior consent and DPA imposes a fine of 10.000 euros.
+Vodafone transfers personal data from its customers to an advertising company without prior consent and HDPA imposes a fine of 10.000 euros.
 == English Summary ==
 === Facts ===
-After requesting the provision of mobile telephone service from Vodafone, the controller, the data subject received a package with product samples sent by an advertising company, a Vodafone's partner. The data subject filed a complaint with the Greek DPA, arguing that they had explicitly objected the processing of their personal data for promotional purposes through an affidavit.
+After requesting the provision of mobile telephony service to the controller - Vodafone, the data subject received a package with product samples at home. The package was sent by one of the controller's partner advertising company. Dissatisfied, the data subject filed a complaint with the HDPA, claiming that they had explicitly opposed the use of their personal data for advertising purposes.
-The data controller claimed that the package was not sent for advertising purposes, but as an additional service to the main telephone contract. According to the data controller, the purpose of this additional service was rewarding new subscribers, who received the gifts irrespective of their choices regarding promotions. Moreover, the data controller alleged that customers were informed by means of a banner posted on their website.
+In response, the controller argued that the package was not sent for advertising purposes, but rather as an additional service to the mobile telephony requested by the data subject. According to the controller, the purpose of this extra service would be to reward new customers, who receive gifts regardless of their preferences in terms of promotions. In addition, the controller alleged that its customers are informed about this extra service through banner on its website.
 === Holding ===
-The DPA examined the facts of the case as well as the claims of the two parties and considered that the transmission of personal data to an advertising company and the related data processing had advertising purposes.
+The HDPA dismissed the controller's allegations and held that the transfer of personal data to the partner company had advertising purposes. It highlighted that consumers, when providing their personal data to contract a telephone service, do not expect that such data will be used for other purposes. In the case under analysis, such an expectation was explicitly expressed, as the data subject opposed the use of his data for advertising purposes. For this reason, the HDPA found a violation of the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency established in [[Article 5 GDPR#1a|Article 5(1)(a)]] GDPR.
-It stated that the processing in question did not serve a purpose compatible to that of the time of the signature of the contract, when there data were collected for the execution of the service requested by the data subject, as provided for by Article [[Article 6 GDPR#1b|6(1)(b) GDPR]]. Further processing was not reasonably expected by the data subject who initially wished to receive services related only to mobile telephony. For this reason, the DPA found a violation of the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency established in [[Article 5 GDPR#1a|Article 5(1)(a)]] GDPR. The DPA emphasized that, in the case at hand, the controller carried out the above processing in disregard of the data subject's express objection.
+Moreover, the HDPA found a violation of [[Article 13 GDPR]], since the controller did not correctly inform data subjects that the simple request for a telephone service would imply the contracting of additional services.
-In adittion, the DPA found a violation of [[Article 13 GDPR]], as the controller did not inform the data subject about the fact that the mere request for the service through the website would imply the transmission of their data to third parties and their use for  advertising purposes.
 As part of the exercise of its powers, the DPA imposed a fine of 10.000 euros on the data controller and ordered it to adapt its practice accordingly.