Optician Rottler successfully defended himself against a misuse of data protection law. (Photo: © stylephotographs/123RF.com)
Read aloud:
Even a request for data access can constitute an abuse of rights if the person submits it solely to claim damages under the GDPR. Brillen Rottler won before the European Court of Justice and now also before the Arnsberg Local Court.
The optician company Rottler Glasses has successfully defended itself against Compensation The case involved a so-called "GDPR hopper." The issue at hand was data protection. "Hoppers" are individuals who take legal action against numerous companies solely to claim compensation based on a formal legal argument. In this instance, a man had subscribed to a newsletter only to subsequently demand information about data processing and ultimately claim damages under the GDPR. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to demand.
The ECJ has clarified: Even the first request for information can abusive The Arnsberg District Court has now also ruled in favor of the optician.
A Viennese man volunteered for Newsletter at He visited Rottler Opticians in Arnsberg. He consented to data processing by ticking a box. Just 13 days later, he demanded a refund from the optician. Access about his data Art. 15 DSGVOThis standard gives every person the right to request comprehensive information about their processed personal data.
The Company refused The information was provided with the argument that the man was acting systematically and therefore abusive He claimed it was a GDPR-hopping business model. There were many references to him and similar cases online. The man also demanded €1.000 in damages. Art. 82 DSGVO because of the refusal to provide information. The dispute went to court.
Mobility
Operations management
Operations management
The Arnsberg District Court appointed the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Several questions regarding the interpretation of the GDPR were raised. Among other things, it sought to clarify under what conditions a company can request information. verweigern may.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that even a first Request for information "excessive" and thus abusive This can be the case, for example, if a person wants to "artificially create the conditions for obtaining compensation under the GDPR." Proof However, the company must take responsibility for such excessive behavior. It may also use public sources that report on the behavior of hoppers. In such cases, the company may either... Remuneration request or obtain information verweigern, Art. 12 para. 5 GDPR.
However, the ECJ emphasizes: This rule is a Exception, And the requirements for this are high: The manner in which the information request is made must demonstrate that it is not being used normally. This includes, for example, the short time interval between data entry and the information request, as well as the person's behavior. Public information These factors can also play a role here, even if they are not sufficient on their own. Additionally, the person must targeted They attempt to gain the right by artificially creating the conditions. Here, too, the circumstances of the individual case are decisive.
Furthermore, the ECJ clarifies: One Compensation to Art. 82 DSGVO This also applies when a company acts against Disclosure obligations Violates. Intangible damage can occur, for example, if someone loses control over their data. However, the affected person must provethat you actually have a Schaden which occurred. And: there is compensation for damages. nicht, if one's own behavior the person is the decisive cause of the damage.
The Arnsberg District Court On July 1, 2026, it decided, based on the ECJ standards, that the man no compensation The optician Rottler was entitled to refuse the request because it was based on... Article 12(5)(b) GDPR excessive was.
The judge found many things illogicalEven though the Viennese man said that he was often in Munich and Düsseldorf, She doesn't believe that that he wanted to buy glasses in Germany. Especially not because then he would also have to deal with any claims for defects. Rottler doesn't ship internationally. The man subscribed to the newsletter himself and stated... more data than necessaryJust nine days later, he sent another fax with all his remaining personal data. Despite this, he did not file a complaint with the state office. That would have been the better course of action if he had truly been concerned about data protection.
From the court's point of view, this image matched the information Rottler had provided. Internet had found information about the man. It was already reported there in spring 2023 that the Viennese man was sending out numerous cease-and-desist letters. This was reported in forums and by lawyers. The judge even assumes that there are further cases with a high number of unreported incidents. For the court, it was clear: The man was behaving contradictory. Those who are very concerned about data protection usually handle their data differently. The judge also found – contrary to the plaintiff's claim – that... no mistakes in Rottler's letter,
District Court Arnsberg, judgment of July 1, 2026, file number. 42 C 434/23, not legally binding (Source: lto.de)
European Court of Justice, judgment of 19 March 2026, Case No. C 526/24, Brillen Rottler
The Adviser in the Craftsmanshipmern help them bei Legal issues gerne .DHB now also digital!Simply click here and register for the digital DHB for free!
Newsletter
Write a comment