Difference between revisions of "OLG Stuttgart - 2 U 257/19"

From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{| class="wikitable" style="width: 25%; margin-left: 10px; float:right;" ! colspan="2" | OLG Stuttgart - 2 U 257/19 |- | colspan="2" style="padding: 20px;" |- |Court:||:Cat...")
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
! colspan="2" | OLG Stuttgart - 2 U 257/19
 
! colspan="2" | OLG Stuttgart - 2 U 257/19
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="padding: 20px;"
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Court:||[[:Category:OLG (Germany)|OLG Stuttgart (Germany)]]
 
|Court:||[[:Category:OLG (Germany)|OLG Stuttgart (Germany)]]

Revision as of 09:31, 12 March 2020

OLG Stuttgart - 2 U 257/19
Court: OLG Stuttgart (Germany)
Jurisdiction: Germany
Relevant Law: Article 13 GDPR

§ 3 UWG (national law against unfair competition)

Decided: 27. 2. 2020
Published: n/a
Parties: Trade association v. professional internet seller
National Case Number: 2 U 257/19
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal from:
Language: German
Original Source: Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (in DE)

The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart points out that the absence of information of Article 13 GDPR constitutes an unfair trade-based action as understood by § 3 of the national law against unfair competition (UWG).

English Summary

Facts

The defendant had offered tires for instant purchase on the website eBay where he had not provided potential buyers with information about the processing of their personal data in case of a purchase according to Article 13 GDPR.

Therefore, the plaintiff, as representative trade-association of those potential buyers, lodged a complaint with the competent jurisdiction, demanding that the defendant be summoned to provide the missing information since the sell was otherwise to be considered inadmissible.

Dispute

Is the absence of information, such as required by Article 13 GDPR, to be considered as an unfair trade-base action, making the offer inadmissible in accordance with § 3 UWG (national law against unfair competition)?

Holding

After admitting the right of action of the plaintiff as representative association of consumers’ rights, the Court points out that the absence of information of Article 13 GDPR constitutes a violation of the law and, as such, an unfair trade-base action as understood by § 3 of the national law against unfair competition (UWG). As long as the defendant does not provide the missing information, the offer is therefore to be considered as inadmissible.

Comment

Share your comment here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

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

DECISION