- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
GDPR Violation costs German Telecommunications Company 9.5 Million Euros
[ by Kavita Krishnan ]The German Federal Data Protection Supervisory Authority (BfDI) – Germany’s federal privacy watchdog has imposed one of the largest fines – a whopping 9.55 million Euros on the telecommunications company 1&1 Telecom GmbH stating that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Art. 32 of the GDPR.The BfDI found that the authentication procedures used by 1&1’s...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The German Federal Data Protection Supervisory Authority (BfDI) – Germany’s federal privacy watchdog has imposed one of the largest fines – a whopping 9.55 million Euros on the telecommunications company 1&1 Telecom GmbH stating that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Art. 32 of the GDPR.
The BfDI found that the authentication procedures used by 1&1’s customer helpline were insufficient and failed to satisfy the requirements of Art. 32 of GDPR. The company has vowed to challenge the order, arguing that the size of the fine is disproportionate.
According to the BfDI, it had become aware that callers could obtain extensive information on further personal customer data in the customer care of the enterprise even by giving the name and date of birth of a customer. In this authentication procedure, the BfDI found a violation of Article 32 of GDPR, according to which the company is obliged to take appropriate technical and organizational measures to systematically protect the processing of personal data.
Since BfDI criticized 1&1 Telecommunications’ inadequate data protection, it has added an extra step to require additional information before obtaining customer data. The company also plans to provide each customer with a personal service PIN to access their account soon.
1&1 Telecommunications will be appealing the fine on the grounds that the fine is disproportionate. However, the BfDI succeeded in sending the message that under GDPR customer data must be protected.