CJEU Determines that a Mere Infringement of the GDPR is not Sufficient to Require Compensation
Time 2 Minute Read

On May 4, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a judgment in the Österreichische Post case (C-300/21). In the decision, the CJEU clarified that a mere infringement of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) is not sufficient to give data subjects the right to receive compensation under Article 82 of the GDPR. Article 82 provides that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.”

Background

The case dates back to 2017 when the Austrian Post (“Österreichische Post”) collected data relating to the political affinities of Austrian residents. In particular, the Austrian Post used an algorithm to define “target group addresses” based on selected socio-demographic features, and classified individuals into target groups. The data was subsequently sold to various organizations to enable them to send targeted advertising in relation to political elections.

One individual filed a complaint relating to this practice and claimed €1,000 in non-material damage.

The CJEU Decision

According to the CJEU, a broad interpretation of the GDPR provision regarding the right to compensation would be contrary to the text of the law. The CJEU highlighted that compensation is required only when three conditions are met: (1) personal data is processed in a manner that infringes the GDPR; (2) the data subject suffered damage; and (3) there is a causal link between the unlawful processing and the damage suffered.

The CJEU also rejected the proposition of a required minimum threshold to award compensation for non-material damage under the GDPR. Instead, the CJEU found that the GDPR requires “full and effective compensation for the damage” and that establishing a minimum threshold would risk undermining the coherent application of the GDPR.

Finally, the CJEU confirmed that, in the absence of rules in the GDPR on the assessment of damages, the matter should be regulated at the EU Member States level, including, in particular, “the criteria for determining the extent of the compensation payable in that context, subject to compliance with [the] principles of equivalence and effectiveness.”

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The Connecticut Attorney General recently issued a legal memorandum regarding the application of existing Connecticut laws, such as the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, to the use of artificial intelligence.

Time 2 Minute Read

On March 3, 2026, the European Commission published draft guidelines intended to clarify the application of the Cyber Resilience Act and opened a public consultation to gather feedback from stakeholders.

Time 6 Minute Read

On February 9, 2026, trade association NetChoice filed a lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s newly passed Age-Appropriate Code Design (“SC AACD”) on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The SC AACD was signed into law on February 5, 2026, making South Carolina the fifth U.S. state to enact such a law, following California, Maryland, Nebraska and Vermont.

Time 2 Minute Read

Congress has extended the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 through September 30, 2026 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, a government funding package enacted in early February 2026.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page