BGH - I ZR 7/16
|BGH - I ZR 7/16|
|Relevant Law:||Article 4(11) GDPR|
|Parties:||Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.
|National Case Number:||VI ZB 39/18|
|European Case Law Identifier:||n/a|
|Appeal from:||OLG Frankfurt (Higher Regional Court)|
|Preliminary Ruling:||CJEU 01.10.2019, C‑673/17|
|Original Source:||BGH press relase|
Following the CJEU's preliminary ruling in the "Planet 49 case" (C-673/17), the German Federal Court of Justice has decided on the question of which requirements must be met for consent to telephone advertising and the storage of cookies on the user's terminal device.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
See facts at the GDPRhub entry to the "Planet 49 case" (C-637/1/).
The second checkbox containing a preselected tick used by the defendant (Planet 49) read as follows:
|English translation||German original|
|‘I agree to the web analytics service Remintrex being used for me. This has the consequence that, following registration for the lottery, the lottery organiser, [Planet49], sets cookies, which enables Planet49 to evaluate my surfing and use behaviour on websites of advertising partners and thus enables advertising by Remintrex that is based on my interests. I can delete the cookies at any time. You can read more about this here.’||"Ich bin einverstanden, dass der Webanalysedienst Remintrex bei mir eingesetzt wird. Das hat zur Folge, dass der Gewinnspielveranstalter, [Planet49], nach Registrierung für das Gewinnspiel Cookies setzt, welches Planet49 eine Auswertung meines Surf- und Nutzungsverhaltens auf Websites von Werbepartnern und damit interessengerichtete Werbung durch Remintrex ermöglicht. Die Cookies kann ich jederzeit wieder löschen. Lesen Sie Näheres hier."|
In the explanation linked to the word "here", it was pointed out that the cookies would receive a specific, randomly generated number (ID) associated with the registration data of the user who entered his/her name and address in the web form provided. If the user with the stored ID would visit the website of an advertising partner registered for Remintrex, this visit should be recorded, as well as which product the user is interested in and whether a contract is concluded.
Holding[edit | edit source]
Following the CJEU's reasoning in its preliminary ruling, the BGH dismissed the defendants' appeal and, on the plaintiff's appeal, overturned the appellate judgment regarding cookie consent and restored the first instance conviction of the defendant:
- The declaration of consent by the preselected tick box does not constitute an "informed indication of the data subject's wishes" within the meaning of Article 2(h) Directive 95/46/EC or an "informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes" within the meaning of Article 2(h) GDPR. Therefore there is no legally valid consent for the data processing.
- The plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief against the storage of cookies on his device under § 1 UKlaG in connection with § 307 BGB because the request for consent by a preselected tick box constitutes an "unreasonable disadvantage to the user".
- The request for consent by a preselected tick box further violates § 15 TMG. An interpretation of § 15 TMG in light of Article 5(3) Directive 2002/58/EC leads to the conclusion that there is no effective consent within the meaning of these provision if the storage of cookies is permitted by a present checkbox which the user must uncheck to refuse consent.
- Pursuant to Article 94 and 95 GDPR the above said fully applies also after 25.05.2018.
Comment[edit | edit source]
The full decison has not been published yet. I will be linked here after publication.
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the original. Please refer to the German original for more details.