GDPR Fines

A list of GDPR fines across all European data protection agencies since 2019, comprising a total cost of €3,994,443,726.

Data Protection Authority Name	Fined Company	Fine	Violation	Description
UODO Polish National Personal Data Protection Office	Individuals and Private Associations Sports association	2019-04-25 €12,950.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	One sports association published personal data referring to judges who were granted judicial licenses online. However, not only their names were provided, but also their exact addresses and PESEL numbers. Meanwhile, there is no legal basis for such a wide range of data on judges to be available on the Internet. By making them public, the administrator posed a potential risk of their unauthorized use, e.g. to impersonate them for the purpose of borrowing or other obligations. Although the association itself noticed its own error, as evidenced by the notification of a personal data protection breach to the President of the PDPA, the fact that attempts to remove it were ineffective determined the imposition of a penalty. When determining the amount of the fine (PLN 55,750.50), the President of UODO also took into account, among others, the duration of the infringement and the fact that it concerned a large group of persons (585 judges). It concluded that although the infringement was finally removed, it was of a serious nature.However, when imposing a penalty, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection also took into account mitigating circumstances, such as good cooperation between the controller and the supervisory authority or lack of evidence that damage had been caused to the persons whose data had been disclosed.
GARANTE Italian Data Protection Authority	Public Sector and Education Italian political party Movimento 5 Stelle	2019-04-17 €50,000.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 32 GDPR	A number of websites affiliated to the Italian political party Movimento 5 Stelle are run, by means of a data processor, through the platform named Rousseau. The platform had suffered a data breach during the summer 2017 that led the Italian data protection authority, the Garante, to require the implementation of a number of security measures, in addition to the obligation to update the privacy information notice in order to give additional transparency to the data processing activities performed.While the update of the privacy information notice was timely completed, the Italian data protection authority, raised its concerns as to the lack of implementation on the Rousseau platform of some of GDPR related security measures. It is worth it to mention that the proceeding initiated before May 2018, but the Italian data protection authority issued a fine under the GDPR since the Rousseau platform had not adopted security measures required by means of an order issued after the 25th of May 2018. Interestingly, the fine was not issued against the Movimento 5 Stelle that is the data controller of the platform, but against the Rousseau association that is the data processor.
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Not assigned Unknown	2019-04-17 €9,400.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 6 GDPR	A data controller used a, in the point of view of NAIH, wrong legal basis for processing of personal data (Art. 6.1.b) for the assignment of claims.
Data Protection Authority of Baden-Wuerttemberg	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Company in the financial sector	2019-04-12 €80,000.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 5 GDPR Art. 32 GDPR	In an administrative decision dated 12 April 2019, the authority imposed a fine of 80,000 euros on a medium-sized financial services company. This company had failed to take the necessary care to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of information within the meaning of Art. 5 para. 1 lit. f GDPR when disposing of documents containing personal data of two customers. Thus, without prior anonymisation, the papers were disposed of in the general waste paper recycling system, where the documents were found by a neighbour.
KZLD Data Protection Commision of Bulgaria	Health Care Medical centers	2019-04-08 €510.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 9 (1) GDPR Art. 9 (2) GDPR Art. 6 (1) GDPR	The sanction of 510 EUR was imposed on each medical center for unlawful processing of the personal data of data subject G.B. by a medical centre for the purpose of changing his GP. The medical centre used a software to generate a registration form for change of GP which was submitted to the Regional Health Insurance Fund and then to another medical centre, which subsequently also unlawfully processed the personal data of G.B.
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Public Sector and Education Hungarian political party	2019-04-05 €34,375.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data breach notification obligations Art. 33 (1) GDPR Art. 33 (5) GDPR Art. 34 (1) GDPR	NAIH imposed a fine of HUF 11,000,000 (EUR 34,375) on an undisclosed Hungarian political party for failing to notify the NAIH and relevant individuals about a data breach, and failing to document the breach according to GDPR Article 33.5. As mandated by law, the fine was based on 4% of the party's annual turnover and 2.65 % of its anticipated turnover for the coming year. The breach was the result of a cyber attack by an anonymous hacker who accessed and disclosed information on the vulnerability of the organisation’s system – a database of more than 6,000 individuals – and the command used for the attack. The system was vulnerable to attack because of a redirection problem with the organisation's webpage. After the attacker published the command, even people with low IT knowledge were able to retrieve information from the database.
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Not assigned Unknown	2019-04-05 €1,900.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 15 GDPR	The data controller did not fulfil the data subject's access request.
UODO Polish National Personal Data Protection Office	Not assigned Private company working with data from publicly available sources	2019-03-26 €220,000.00	Insufficient fulfilment of information obligations Art. 14 GDPR	The fine concerned the proceedings related to the activity of a company which processed the data subjects’ data obtained from publicly available sources, inter alia from the Central Electronic Register and Information on Economic Activity, and processed the data for commercial purposes. The authority verified incompliance with the information obligation in relation to natural persons conducting business activity – entrepreneurs who are currently conducting such activity or have suspended it, as well as entrepreneurs who conducted such activity in the past. The controller fulfilled the information obligation by providing the information required under Art. 14 (1) – (3) of the GDPR only in relation to the persons whose e-mail addresses it had at its disposal. In case of the remaining persons the controller failed to comply with the information obligation – as it explained in the course of the proceedings – due to high operational costs. Therefore, it presented the information clause only on its website. According to the UODO this is not sufficient. Addendum: In the meantime, the court has cancelled the fine due to procedural errors. The amount of the fine has to be determined by the concrete number of data records concerned. However, the Office had not submitted any verifiable evidence in this regard, but had simply assumed that 6 million data sets were involved, which the data controller had denied. Therefore, important statements were missing. In particular, it was incorrect to justify the amount of the fine on the basis of general preventive considerations. Art. 58 GDPR expressly states that a fine imposed must be related to the specific facts of the case. The Polish data protection authority has already announced that the fine will be revised in a new administrative procedure.
KZLD Data Protection Commision of Bulgaria	Employment A.P. EOOD	2019-03-26 €5,100.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 6 GDPR	The sanction was imposed on personal data administrator A.P. EOOD for unlawful processing of personal data. The personal data of data subject D.D. was used by A.P. EOOD for preparing an Employment Contract, while he was in prison.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Not assigned Unknown	2019-03-21 €10,000.00	Non-compliance with general data processing principles Art. 5 (1) GDPR	Data was not only processed if adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed ('data minimisation') and not only kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed ('storage limitation').
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Unnamed financial institution	2019-03-04 €3,200.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 5 (1) b) GDPR Art. 5 (1) c) GDPR Art. 13 (3) GDPR Art. 17 (1) GDPR Art. 6 (4) GDPR	The fine was imposed in relation to a data subject's request for data correction and erasure. NAIH levied a fine against an unnamed financial institution for unlawfully rejecting a customer’s request to have his phone number erased after arguing that it was in the company's legitimate interest to process this data in order to enforce a debt claim against the customer. In its decision, the NAIH emphasised that the customer’s phone number is not necessary for the purpose of debt collection because the creditor can also communicate with the debtor by post. Consequently, keeping the phone number of the debtor was against the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation. As per the law, the assessed fine was based on 0.025% of the company's annual net revenue.
Data Protection Authority of Berlin	Finance, Insurance and Consulting N26	2019-03 €50,000.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	The fine was imposed against against a bank (according to a newspaper N26) that had processed 'personal data of all former customers' without permission.The Bank has acknowledged that it had retained data relating to former customers in order to maintain a blacklist, a kind of warning file, so that it would not make a new account available to these persons. The bank initially justified this by stating that it was obliged under the German Banking Act to take security measures against customers suspected of money laundering. The Berlin supervisory authority judged this to be illegal. The authority argues that in order to prevent a new bank account from being opened, only those affected may be included in a comparison file who are actually suspected of money laundering or for whom there are other valid reasons for refusing a new bank account. The authority told a newspaper that the fine proceedings initiated against the bank had 'not yet been legally concluded'.
DATATILSYNET Norwegian Supervisory Authority	Public Sector and Education Bergen Municipality	2019-03 €170,000.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 5 (1) f) GDPR Art. 32 GDPR	The incident relates to computer files with usernames and passwords to over 35000 user accounts in the municipality’s computer system. The user accounts related to both pupils in the municipality’s primary schools, and to the employees of the same schools. Due to insufficient security measures, these files have been unprotected and openly accessible. The lack of security measures in the system made it possible for anyone to log in to the school’s various information systems, and thereby to access various categories of personal data relating to the pupils and employees of the schools. The fact that the security breach encompasses personal data to over 35 000 individuals, and that the majority of these are children, were considered to be aggravating factors. The municipality had also been warned several times, both by the authority and an internal whistleblower, that the data security was inadequate.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Not assigned Unknown	2019-02-28 €582.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 32 GDPR	Data was not processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures ('integrity and confidentiality').
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Public Sector and Education Mayor's Office of the city of Kecdkemét	2019-02-28 €3,200.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 6 GDPR	The fine was imposed on the Mayor’s Office of the city of Kecskemét for unlawful disclosure of the personal information of a whistleblower.NAIH imposed the fine after an employee of an organisation that it supervised reported a public interest complaint directly to it against his employer. After the organisation learned of the complaint, it requested details in order to investigate, and the local government accidentally revealed the complainant's name. The NAIH considered it an aggravating factor that as a result of the data breach, the organisation fired the person who made the report.
KZLD Bulgarian Commission for Personal Data Protection	Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting Telecommunication service provider	2019-02-26 €27,100.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR	Repeated registration of prepaid services without the knowledge and consent of the data subject Employees of the telecommunications provider have used personal data and registered the complainant with the company's prepaid service. The data subject had not signed the application and had not consented to the processing of his personal data for the stated purpose. There was also no other legal basis applicable. The signature of the application and the complainant own genuine application were not identical and the persons personal identification number was indicated, but the identity card number was not the complainants one.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Not assigned Unknown	2019-02-26 €776.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 15 GDPR	Information was not provided.
KZLD Bulgarian Commission for Personal Data Protection	Employment Employer	2019-02-22 €500.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 15 GDPR	An employee sent a request to his employer for access to personal data concerning him. The request was not answered in time and not in a complete way.
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Debt collector	2019-02-20 €1,560.00	Non-compliance with general data processing principles Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 5 (1) c) GDPR	A data subject requested information about and erasure of the data processed, which the debt collector refused stating that it could not identify the subject. For identification purposes he requested place of birth, mother’s maiden name and further details from the data subject. After the controller succeeded to identify the data subjects he refused to comply with the deletion request, arguing he is legally obliged to retain backup copies according to the Accountancy Act and internal policies. Since he did not properly inform about these policies, the NAIH held the controller breached the principle of transparency. The fine constitutes 0.0025% of the annual profit of the controller.
Data Protection Commissioner of Malta	Public Sector and Education Lands Authority	2019-02-18 €5,000.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 5 GDPR Art. 32 GDPR	As a result of the lack of appropriate security measures on the Lands Authority website, over 10 gigabytes of personal data became easily accessible to the public via a simple google search. The majority of the leaked data contained highly-sensitive information and correspondence between individuals and the Authority itself. The Lands Authority chose not to appeal. In Malta, in the case of a breach by a public authority or body, the Data Protection Commissioner may impose an administrative fine of up to €25,000 for each violation and may additionally impose a daily fine of €25 for each day such violation persists.
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Bank	2019-02-08 €1,560.00	Non-compliance with general data processing principles Art. 5 (1) d) GDPR	A bank mistakenly sent SMS messages about a subject's credit card debt to the telephone number of another person. After receiving an incorrect telephone number from the client at the time of contracting, the bank did not comply with the data subject's request to erase the data and continued to send SMS message to the incorrect telephone number. The fine represents 0.0016% of the annual profit of the bank.
Data Protection Authority of Sachsen-Anhalt	Individuals and Private Associations Private person	2019-02-05 €2,500.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR Art. 5 GDPR	The fine was impossed against a private person who sent several e-mails between July and September 2018, in which he used personal e-mail addresses visible to all recipients, from which each recipient could read countless other recipients. The man was accused of ten offences between mid-July and the end of July 2018. According to the authority's letter, between 131 and 153 personal mail addresses were identifiable in his mailing list.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Industry and Commerce Car renting company	2019-02-04 €1,165.00	Insufficient fulfilment of information obligations Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR	A person who rented a car found out that the car was tracked via GPS by the renting company even though there was no information provided on the fact that the car is being tracked. The Czech Data Protection Authority found that there was no information provided in terms of Art. 13 GDPR and that Art. 6 (1) f) GDPR could not be the legal basis under the concrete circumstances. Due to that the UOOU found that there was a violation of Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR for which it imposed the fine.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Credit brokerage	2019-02-04 €1,165.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 32 GDPR	Data was not processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures ('integrity and confidentiality').
CNIL French Data Protection Authority	Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting Google LLC	2019-01-21 €50,000,000.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 13 GDPR Art. 14 GDPR Art. 6 GDPR Art. 5 GDPR	The fine was imposed on the basis of complaints from the Austrian organisation 'None Of Your Business' and the French NGO 'La Quadrature du Net'. The complaints were filed on 25th and 28th of May 2018 - immediately after the GDPR became applicable. The complaints concerned the creation of a Google account during the configuration of a mobile phone using the Android operating system. The CNIL imposed a fine of 50 million euros for lack of transparency (Art. 5 GDPR), insufficient information (Art. 13 / 14 GDPR) and lack of legal basis (Art. 6 GDPR). The obtained consents had not been given 'specific' and not 'unambigous' (Art. 4 nr. 11 GDPR).
KZLD Bulgarian Commission for Personal Data Protection	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Bank	2019-01-17 €500.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR	A bank gained personal data concernign a student wihtout a legal basis.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Employment Employer	2019-01-10 €388.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	A former employee of a company requested the deletion of information relating to him/her which was published on the Facebook website of the employer and which was still available long after the termination of the employment relationship. The fine was imposed because the employer did not delete the information relating to the former employee.
Cypriot Data Protection Commissioner	Health Care State Hospital	2019 €5,000.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 15 GDPR	A patient complained to the Commissioner that the request for access to her medical file was not satisfied by the hospital because the dossier could not be identified/located by the controller. After investigating the case, an administrative fine of €5,000 was imposed on the hospital.
Cypriot Data Protection Commissioner	Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting Newspaper	2019 €10,000.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	The publication of the newspaper, both in hard copy and in electronic form, allegedly involved inconvenience, unnecessary and unlawful detention of a citizen, and revealed the names and pictures of the two police investigators involved, as well as the photograph of a third police investigator. The Commissioner considered that the aim could be achieved by referring only to the initials of their name and/or their faces being blurred and/or publishing photographs drawn from a distant distance so that it was impossible to identify the persons, and these actions would not bring any change in the nature of the case.
DATATILSYNET Danish Data Protection Authority	Transportation and Energy Taxa 4x35	2019 €160,000.00	Non-compliance with general data processing principles Art. 5 (1) e) GDPR	The Danish DPA reported the taxi company to the police and recommended a fine (of 1.2M DKK) for non-adherence to the data-minimization principle. While the company deleted the names of its passengers from all its records after two years, the deletion did not include the rest of the ride records (about 8,873,333 taxi trips). Hence, the company continued to hold onto individual's phone numbers. Please note: Since Danish law does not provide for administrative fines as in the GDPR (unless it is an uncomplicated case and the accused person consented), fines will be imposed by courts.
Data Protection Authority of Saxony	Not assigned Unknown	2019 €500.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 15 GDPR	A data controller failed to comply with data subject´s request to access their personal data.
Data Protection Authority of Saxony	Individuals and Private Associations Unknown	2019 €NaN	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	Eight fines between EUR 50 and EUR 800 for unlawful use of a dashcam.
Data Protection Authority of Niedersachsen	Individuals and Private Associations Unknown	2019 €NaN	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	Nine fines between EUR 350 and EUR 1,000 for unlawful use of a dashcam.
DSB Austrian Data Protection Authority	Individuals and Private Associations Private person	2018-12-20 €2,200.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 5 (1) c) GDPR Art. 6 (1) GDPR Art. 13 GDPR	The fine was imposed against a private person who was using CCTV at his home. The video surveillance covered areas which are intended for the general use of the residents of the multi-party residential complex, namely: parking lots, sidewalks, courtyard, garden and access areas to the residential complex; in addition, the video surveillance covered garden areas of an adjacent property. The video surveillance subject of the proceedings is therefore not limited to areas which are under the exclusive power of control of the controller. Video surveillance is therefore not proportionate to the purpose and not limited to what is necessary. The video surveillance records the hallway of the house and films residents entering and leaving the surrounding apartments, thereby intervening in their highly personal areas of life without the consent to record their image data. The video surveillance was not properly indicated.
NAIH Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information	Not assigned Unknown	2018-12-18 €3,200.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 12 (4) GDPR Art. 15 GDPR Art. 18 (1) c) GDPR Art. 13 GDPR	The fine was imposed for (i) not providing a data subject with CCTV recordings, (ii) not retaining recordings for further use by the data subject, and (iii) not informing the data subject about his right to lodge a complaint to the supervisory authority.
Data Protection Authority of Hamburg	Industry and Commerce Kolibri Image Regina und Dirk Maass GbR	2018-12-17 €5,000.00	Insufficient data processing agreement Art. 28 (3) GDPR	Please note: According to our information this fine has been withdrawn in the meantime. Kolibri Image had send a request to the Data Protection Authority of Hessen asking how to deal with a service provider who does not want to sign a processing agreement. After not answering Kolibri Image in more detail, the case was forwarded to the locally responsible Data Protection Authority of Hamburg. This Authority then fined Kolibri Image as controller for not having a processing agreement with the service provider. Kolibri Image has stated that they will challenge the decision in front of court since they are of the opinion that the service provider does not act as a processor.
DSB Austrian Data Protection Authority	Industry and Commerce Betting place	2018-12-09 €4,800.00	Insufficient fulfilment of information obligations Art. 13 GDPR	Video surveillance was not sufficiently marked and a large part of the sidewalk of the facility was recorded. Surveillance of the public space in this way, i.e. on a large scale by private individuals, is not permitted.
KZLD Bulgarian Commission for Personal Data Protection	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Bank	2018-12-04 €500.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) b) GDPR Art. 6 GDPR	A fine of 1000 BGN (or roughly 500 EUR) was imposed on a bank for calling a client for the unresolved bills of his neighbor. This provoked the client to evoke his right to be forgotten. After not receiving any answer from the bank he filed another motion, for which the bank did take action in the statutory period. Nonetheless, the client filed a complaint to KZLD. The infringement for which the bank was fined was for the processing of the client’s personal data was not linked to his consumer credit agreement. Since the purpose for which the data were processed was different from that communicated at the time of conclusion of the contract, the bank had, in the point of view of KZLD, to request additional consent from its client.
Data Protection Authority of Baden-Wuerttemberg	Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting Knuddels.de	2018-11-21 €20,000.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 32 GDPR	After a hacker attack in July personal data of approx. 330.000 users, including passwords and email addresses had been revealed.
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Not assigned Unknown	2018-10-25 €388.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 15 GDPR	Information was not provided.
DSB Austrian Data Protection Authority	Individuals and Private Associations Private car owner	2018-09-27 €300.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) a) GDPR Art. 6 GDPR	A Dashcam was unlawfully used.
CNPD Portuguese Data Protection Authority	Health Care Public Hospital	2018-07-17 €400,000.00	Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security Art. 5 (1) f) GDPR Art. 32 GDPR	Investigation revealed that the hospital’s staff, psychologists, dietitians and other professionals had access to patient data through false profiles. The profile management system appeared deficient – the hospital had 985 registered doctor profiles while only having 296 doctors. Moreover, doctors had unrestricted access to all patient files, regardless of the doctor’s specialty.
DSB Austrian Data Protection Authority	Accomodation and Hospitalty Kebab restaurant	2018 €1,800.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 GDPR Art. 13 GDPR Art. 14 GDPR	CCTV was unlawfully used. Sufficient information about the video surveillance was missing. In addition, the storage period of 14 days was too long and therefore against the principle of data minimization. Addendum: Fine has been reduced to EUR 1500 by court, see <a class='blau' href='https://www.dataprotect.at/2020-videoüberwachung-strafe/' target='_blank'>link</a>
Data Protection Authority of Hamburg	Not assigned Unknown	2018 €20,000.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data breach notification obligations Art. 33 (1) GDPR Art. 34 (1) GDPR	Late notification of a data breach and failure to notify the data subjects.
Data Protection Authority of Hamburg	Not assigned Unknown	2018 €500.00	Unknown Unknown	Unknown
UOOU Czech Data Protection Auhtority	Finance, Insurance and Consulting UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia, a.s.	Unknown €3,140.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	The bank established a personal bank account for a data subject without his consent or knowledge. The bank supposedly had his personal data available because the subject had disposed of his employer’s company account. The bank was not able to provide The Office for Personal Data Protection with the necessary documentation to prove entering into contract with the data subject.
Data Protection Authority of Saarland	Not assigned Unknown	Unknown €118.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 6 GDPR	Illegal disclosure of personal data relating to a third party.
AEPD Spanish Data Protection Authority	Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting Vodafone España, S.A.U.	Unknown €5,000.00	Non-compliance with general data processing principles Art. 5 (1) d) GDPR	The spanish telecommunications and informations agancy (SETSI) decided Vodafone had to reimburse a customer for costs he was wrongfully charged for. Nevertheless, Vodafone reported personal data of this respective customer to a solvency registry (BADEXCUG). The AEPD found this behaviour violated the principle of accuracy.
AEPD Spanish Data Protection Authority	Finance, Insurance and Consulting Debt collecting agancy (GESTIÓN DE COBROS, YO COBRO SL)	Unknown €60,000.00	Insufficient legal basis for data processing Art. 5 (1) f) GDPR	After the claimant did alledgedly not pay back a microcredit to an online credit agany, the claim was assigned to the debt collecting agancy. Subsequently, the latter startet sending emails not only to email addresses provided by the claimant but also to an institutional email address of his workplace accessible by any co-worker which was never provided by the claimant.
AEPD Spanish Data Protection Authority	Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting Vodafone España, S.A.U.	Unknown €27,000.00	Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights Art. 5 (1) d) GDPR	Although the complainant (a former Vodafone customer) had requested Vodafone to delete his data in 2015 and this request had been confirmed by the company, he received more than 200 SMS from the company from 2018 onwards. Following Vodafone's statement, this happened because the complainant's mobile phone number was erroneously used for testing purposes and accidentally appeared in various customer files belonging to other customers than the complainant. Since the company agreed to both payment and admission of responsibility the fine was reduced in accordance with Spanish administrative law to EUR 27k.