German DPA Imposes 1.3 Million EUR Fine on Insurance Group for Violation of Data Protection Law
Time 1 Minute Read

On December 29, 2014, the Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information of the German state Rhineland-Palatinate issued a press release stating that it imposed a fine of €1,300,000 on the insurance group Debeka. According to the Commissioner, Debeka was fined due to its lack of internal controls and its violations of data protection law. Debeka sales representatives allegedly bribed public sector employees during the eighties and nineties to obtain address data of employees who were on path to become civil servants. Debeka purportedly wanted this address data to market insurance contracts to these employees. The Commissioner asserted that the action against Debeka is intended to emphasize that companies must handle personal data in a compliant manner. The fine was accepted by Debeka to avoid lengthy court proceedings.

In addition to the monetary fine, the Commissioner imposed obligations on Debeka with respect to its data protection processes and procedures, including a requirement that Debeka’s employees obtain written consent from customers when they disclose their addresses. The insurance group also has appointed 26 data protection officers. The public prosecutor has initiated criminal proceedings against representatives of Debeka in this matter and those proceedings are ongoing.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On February 23, 2026, a Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery was published by 61 data protection authorities. The Joint Statement addresses concerns regarding AI systems capable of generating realistic images and videos depicting identifiable individuals without their knowledge or consent.

Time 3 Minute Read

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide who qualifies as a “consumer” under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law originally enacted to protect the privacy of individuals’ video rental and purchase records.

Time 7 Minute Read

As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims.

Time 1 Minute Read

On December 15, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it, along with 21 states and the District of Columbia, filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California alleging that Uber used unfair and deceptive billing and cancellation practices. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page