ADA (Lithuania) - 2024-02-23: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:34, 19 June 2024

ADA - 2024-02-23

Authority:	ADA (Lithuania)
Jurisdiction:	Lithuania
Relevant Law:	Article 6(1)(b) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 21(1) GDPR
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:
Decided:	23.02.2024
Published:	08.06.2024
Fine:	n/a
Parties:	n/a
National Case Number/Name:	2024-02-23
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	n/a
Original Language(s):	Lithuanian
Original Source:	ADA (Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija - VDAI) (in LT)
Initial Contributor:	Alexander Shpiliauskas

The DPA reprimanded a controller for failing to honor the data subject's right to object to receiving payment reminders, even though the data subject consistently made timely payments.

English Summary

Facts

A provider of electronic communications services ('controller) provided services to a customer ('data subject') under a contract.

The data subject filed a complaint with the DPA and stated that he received the controller's bill payment reminders, which were sent to the applicant's email address on monthly basis, although the data subject paid the bills for services on time. The data subject indicated and provided evidence that he had repeatedly asked the controller not to send these reminders. Additionally, he was not provided with any opt-out option from receiving the unwanted emails.

The controller indicated that reminders were sent to the data subject due to the necessity to perform the contract in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. Additionally, the controller presented arguments regarding the possibility of applying a legitimate interest condition as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, emphasizing data controller’s interest in receiving payment for services on time.

The controller admitted that the data subject had always paid the bills by the dates specified in the controller's documents and reminders.

Holding

The DPA held that the controller could not justify the processing of the data based on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. The processing of the data subject's email address for the purpose of sending reminders was not necessary in order to fulfill the contract concluded with the data subject.

Furthermore, the DPA found that processing based on the controller's legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is in principle possible, however the controller must prove, in each case of refusal to honor an objection, that the reasons for processing outweigh the data subject's interests, rights, and freedoms.

As a result, the controller's refusal to honor the data subject's objection to the processing of their e-mail address constituted a violation of Article 21(1) GDPR.

Therefore, the data subject's complaint was accepted and the controller received instructions to satisfy the data subject's request to implement the right to object with the processing of their email address for sending payment reminders.

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 Lithuanian original. Please refer to the Lithuanian original for more details.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 |DPA_With_Country=ADA (Lithuania)
-|Case_Number_Name=On the right to disagree, when the data subject does not agree to receive reminders regarding the payment of the service bill
+|Case_Number_Name=2024-02-23
 |ECLI=
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 |National_Law_Link_2=
-|Party_Name_1=Customer (applicant)
+|Party_Name_1=
 |Party_Link_1=
-|Party_Name_2=Provider of electronic communications services (data controller)
+|Party_Name_2=
 |Party_Link_2=
 |Party_Name_3=
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 }}
-Client’s e-mail address processing for the purpose of sending reminders on the basis of legitimate interest does not justify refusal to implement client's right to disagree with processing of the client’s e-mail address (violation of Article 21(1))
+The DPA reprimanded a controller for failing to honor the data subject's right to object to receiving payment reminders, even though the data subject consistently made timely payments.
 == English Summary ==
 === Facts ===
-The provider of electronic communications services (hereinafter - the data controller) had been providing services to the customer (hereinafter - the applicant) under the contract.
+A provider of electronic communications services ('controller) provided services to a customer ('data subject') under a contract.
-The applicant filed a complaint with Lithuanian Data Protection Authority (hereinafter - DPA) and stated that he receives the data controller's bill payment reminders, which are sent to the applicant's email address every month, although the applicant pays the bills for services on time.
+The data subject filed a complaint with the DPA and stated that he received the controller's bill payment reminders, which were sent to the applicant's email address on monthly basis, although the data subject paid the bills for services on time. The data subject indicated and provided evidence that he had repeatedly asked the controller not to send these reminders. Additionally, he was not provided with any opt-out option from receiving the unwanted emails.
-The applicant indicated and provided evidence that he had repeatedly asked the data controller not to send reminders to the applicant. The applicant was not given any alternative to opt out of unwanted emails.
-The applicant requested the DPA to give him the opportunity to opt out of receiving reminders of such content.
-The data controller indicated that reminders were sent to the applicant in accordance with [[Article 6 GDPR#1b|Article 6(1)(b) GDPR]] and presented arguments regarding the possibility of applying a legitimate interest condition, i.e. [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]], emphasizing data controller’s interest in receiving payment for services on time.
+The controller indicated that reminders were sent to the data subject due to the necessity to perform the contract in accordance with [[Article 6 GDPR#1b|Article 6(1)(b) GDPR]]. Additionally, the controller presented arguments regarding the possibility of applying a legitimate interest condition as per [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]], emphasizing data controller’s interest in receiving payment for services on time.
-The DPA found that:
+The controller admitted that the data subject had always paid the bills by the dates specified in the controller's documents and reminders.
-(i) none of the documents submitted by the data controller to the Lithuanian DPA stipulate that the reminders will be sent, if customer (the applicant) would not pay the bill by a certain date, e. g., by the 25th of the current month;
-(ii) the payment deadline was the last day of the month according to the reminders and documents, which were indicated by the data controller;
-(iii) the data controller admitted that the applicant had always paid the bills by the dates specified in the data controller's documents and reminders;
-(iv) the data controller did not provide any evidence that the applicant breached the payment conditions established by the contract.
 === Holding ===
-The DPA held that:
+The DPA held that the controller could not justify the processing of the data based on [[Article 6 GDPR#1b|Article 6(1)(b) GDPR]]. The processing of the data subject's email address for the purpose of sending reminders was not necessary in order to fulfill the contract concluded with the data subject.
-(i) usage of the applicant's email address for the purpose of sending reminders was not necessary in order to fulfill the contract concluded with the applicant, therefore the data controller cannot justify the legality of his actions (within the scope of the complaint) on the basis of the contract fulfillment (i. e., with [[Article 6 GDPR#1b|Article 6(1)(b) GDPR]]).
-(ii) the data controller can send reminders to its customers (data subjects) regarding regular monthly bill payment for services in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR (i.e., on the basis of legitimate interest), but the data controller has to prove in each specific case (of refusal to implement data subject's right to disagree with the usage of data subject’s personal data for sending payment reminders) that the reasons for the personal data processing are superior to the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject after the data subject expresses disagreement regarding usage of data subject's personal data for the purposes of delivery of the reminders.
+Furthermore, the DPA found that processing based on the controller's legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is in principle possible, however the controller must prove, in each case of refusal to honor an objection, that the reasons for processing outweigh the data subject's interests, rights, and freedoms.
-(iii) the data controller was processing data subject’s e-mail address for the purpose of sending reminders on the basis of [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]], therefore refusal to implement the applicant's right to disagree with processing of the data subject’s e-mail address constituted violation of [[Article 21 GDPR#1|Article 21(1) GDPR]].
+As a result, the controller's refusal to honor the data subject's objection to the processing of their e-mail address constituted a violation of [[Article 21 GDPR#1|Article 21(1) GDPR]].
-Therefore, the applicant's complaint was accepted as justified and the instruction was given to the data controller to satisfy the applicant's request (to implement the right to disagree with the usage of applicant’s email address for sending payment reminders).
+Therefore, the data subject's complaint was accepted and the controller received instructions to satisfy the data subject's request to implement the right to object with the processing of their email address for sending payment reminders.
 == Comment ==