Take-Aways (AI)
  • The Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Stutt­gart found that the GDPR does not pre­vent mem­ber sta­tes from gran­ting com­pe­ti­ti­on asso­cia­ti­ons the right to sue under natio­nal law.
  • Vio­la­ti­ons of the infor­ma­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons under Art. 13 GDPR are con­side­red mar­ket con­duct law and can the­r­e­fo­re con­sti­tu­te com­pe­ti­ti­on law infringements.

The OLG Stutt­gart has with Judgment of 27.02.2020 (Ref. 2 U 257/19) first deter­mi­ned from the GDPR does not mean that Mem­ber Sta­tes can­not grant com­pe­ti­ti­on asso­cia­ti­ons stan­ding. The GDPR only sti­pu­la­tes that natio­nal law must pro­vi­de for a right of action and a right to com­plain to a super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty; howe­ver, the detail­ed design of law enforce­ment is the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the Mem­ber Sta­tes. The Legal stan­ding accor­ding to § Sec­tion 8 (3) no. 2 D-UWG in the event of inf­rin­ge­ments of com­pe­ti­ti­on law is GDPR the­r­e­fo­re not displaced.

Then put the Vio­la­ti­on of infor­ma­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons accor­ding to Art. 13 GDPR con­sti­tu­tes an inf­rin­ge­ment of com­pe­ti­ti­onbecau­se they are mar­ket behavior:

  • The know­ledge of the name and cont­act details of the per­son respon­si­ble has a con­su­mer-pro­tec­ti­ve func­tion and pro­vi­des the neces­sa­ry com­pe­ti­ti­ve reference;
  • The infor­ma­ti­on about the pur­po­ses of the pro­ce­s­sing and its legal basis, as well as whe­ther the pro­vi­si­on of the data is requi­red by law or con­tract or neces­sa­ry for the con­clu­si­on of a con­tract, and the infor­ma­ti­on about the sto­rage peri­od are also rela­ted to competition.

In Switz­er­land, it has so far been an open que­sti­on whe­ther vio­la­ti­ons of data pro­tec­tion law via the figu­re of “pre­ju­di­ce by breach of law” are cover­ed by the gene­ral clau­se of the UWG (alt­hough here too it depends on whe­ther the inf­rin­ged pro­vi­si­on con­sti­tu­tes mar­ket con­duct law). In any case, this que­sti­on is of litt­le prac­ti­cal rele­van­ce. It is also unclear whe­ther incor­rect or miss­ing data pro­tec­tion infor­ma­ti­on vio­la­tes Art. 3 para. 1 lit. b UWG (“infor­ma­ti­on about ones­elf” or “infor­ma­ti­on about busi­ness rela­ti­on­ships”). Howe­ver, this would only be the case if the fal­se or miss­ing infor­ma­ti­on crea­tes a risk of mis­lea­ding the rea­der, which can only be the case in excep­tio­nal cases.