OGH - 6Ob148/25w

Summary

An Austrian court has ruled that using personal data for identity verification within credit assessments, even if not directly used for calculating a credit score, violates GDPR's purpose limitation principle. The controller, operating as both an address publisher and credit information agency, purchased data for direct marketing but used it for identity checks in credit assessments. The court found this further processing, which had significant consequences for the data subject, was not subject to appropriate safeguards and thus breached Article 6(4) of the GDPR.

Full text

Help OGH - 6Ob148/25w: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 13:14, 16 September 2026 view sourceLs (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators422 editsTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 13:28, 16 September 2026 view source Lh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators57 editsTag: Visual edit (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)Line 101: Line 101: === Facts ====== Facts === The controller runs an address publishing business as well as a credit information agency. As part of its credit assessment activity, it (i) verifies the existence of individuals whose credit score is requested with data like their name and address and (ii) issues credit scores based on data provided by debt collection agencies and on statistics, as payment default data is available on approximately 10% of Austrians.The controller runs an address publishing business as well as a credit information agency. As part of its credit assessment activity, it (i) checks that individuals whose credit score is requested exist with data like their name and address and (ii) issues credit scores based on data provided by debt collection agencies and on statistics, as payment default data is available on approximately 10% of Austrians. The controller bought personal data about a data subject (name, address, date of birth) from a company (B) that operates in the address publishing and direct marketing industry. The contract provided that this data may only be used for identity verification. The controller bought personal data about a data subject (name, address, date of birth) from a company (B) that operates in the address publishing and direct marketing industry. The contract provided that this data may only be used to check whether the individual with that name under that address exists. While the data subject’s data was initially collected by company B for the purpose of direct marketing, the controller used the personal data in question exclusively for identity verification. While the data subject’s data was initially collected by company B for the purpose of direct marketing, the controller used the personal data in question exclusively to check the individual with that name under that address exists. At a customer's request, the controller issued a credit assessment of the data subject. The assessment was based on the name, gender and address of the data subject because there was no available data on possible payment defaults of the data subject. At a customer's request, the controller issued a credit assessment of the data subject. The assessment was based on the name, gender and address of the data subject because there was no available data on possible payment defaults of the data subject. Line 119: Line 119: The data subject appealed the decision.The data subject appealed the decision. === Holding ====== Holding === The court partly upheld the decision of the court of second instance.The court partly upheld the decision of the court of second instance. <u>Pre-emptive injunctions</u><u>Pre-emptive injunctions</u> Line 127: Line 127: <u>Purpose limitation</u><u>Purpose limitation</u> The court considered that processing data for an identity check in the context of credit assessments must be regarded as processing data for the purpose of credit assessments. This is true even where the data was not used for calculating the credit score itself. In this case, the controller processed the personal data for a different purpose than the marketing purpose that justified the initial collection. The court considered that processing data to check if the individual exists in the context of credit assessments must be regarded as processing data for the purpose of credit assessments. This is true even where the data was not used for calculating the credit score itself. In this case, the controller processed the personal data for a different purpose than the marketing purpose that justified the initial collection. The further processing had significant consequences for the data subject and was not subject to appropriate safeguards pursuant to [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(4)(e) GDPR]], in violation of [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(4) GDPR]]. The further processing had significant consequences for the data subject and was not subject to appropriate safeguards pursuant to [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(4)(e) GDPR]], in violation of [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(4) GDPR]]. Latest revision as of 13:28, 16 September 2026 OGH - 6Ob148/25w Court: OGH (Austria) Jurisdiction: Austria Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 6(4) GDPR Article 7 CFRArticle 8 CFR Decided: 12.08.2026 Published: Parties: National Case Number/Name: 6Ob148/25w European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2026:0060OB00148.25W.0812.000 Appeal from: Appeal to: Original Language(s): German Original Source: RIS (in German) Initial Contributor: lh The processing of data initially collected for marketing purpose is incompatible with a credit assessment purpose, in violation of Article 6(4) GDPR. Score calculation based on statistics, address and name of the data subject is, however, not generally unlawful. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts The controller runs an address publishing business as well as a credit information agency. As part of its credit assessment activity, it (i) checks that individuals whose credit score is requested exist with data like their name and address and (ii) issues credit scores based on data provided by debt collection agencies and on statistics, as payment default data is available on approximately 10% of Austrians. The controller bought personal data about a data subject (name, address, date of birth) from a company (B) that operates in the address publishing and direct marketing industry. The contract provided that this data may only be used to check whether the individual with that name under that address exists. While the data subject’s data was initially collected by company B for the purpose of direct marketing, the controller used the personal data in question exclusively to check the individual with that name under that address exists. At a customer's request, the controller issued a credit assessment of the data subject. The assessment was based on the name, gender and address of the data subject because there was no available data on possible payment defaults of the data subject. The data subject brought an injunction against the controller. The main discussions regarded (i) a violation of the purpose limitation principle: the data was initially collected for direct marketing purposes and later used for credit assessment; (ii) the calculation of the score, which relied solely on statistical data and not on data actually concerning the payment history of the data subject. The court of first instance and second instance rejected the injunction. The court of first instance held that the controller processed the data according to the contract with company B. Moreover, the processing for the original purpose was compatible with the further processing. The court of second instance however held that the further processing was not compatible with the original purpose but that the controller could rely on national law as legal basis. As far as the method of credit assessment was concerned, both courts held that the processing fell under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR because the processing was necessary for operating a credit information agency. The data subject appealed the decision. Holding The court partly upheld the decision of the court of second instance. Pre-emptive injunctions Firstly, the court referred to the case law of the CJEU that provides for the possibility of pre-emptive injunctions under national la

Entities