Revolutionary BGH ruling: compensation from Facebook? Yes, but only 100 euros | Life and knowledge

by time news

2024-11-18 17:41:00

This is an explosive topic and a lot of money is invested at stake: what compensation am I​ entitled to as ⁢a user or customer in the event ⁤of a data leak by companies? German courts have recently made inconsistent decisions. The ⁢Federal Court of Justice has⁤ now issued a key ruling ​on the​ Facebook data leak ⁢in April 2021 (6​ million people affected in Germany alone):

Facebook users‌ can generally seek damages from the company. In the event of a simple loss of control, ⁣100 euros in compensation for damages could be appropriate. Even as consumer ⁢advocates cheer, there are still cost risks for plaintiffs.

What‌ is it about?

Lawyer Christian Solmecke (over one million followers on YouTube) has applied to the Federal⁢ Court ‌of Justice for a⁢ mandate. The presiding judge at the BGH made it clear in his oral ​assessment that he⁣ sees harm ⁢in Facebook’s loss of control of the data. Naturally, this damage will also have to be compensated. In this specific case ⁢Solmecke’s client demands 1,000 euros. However, this sum risks ⁤being too ‍high, according to BGH in a recent note. In the event of a simple loss of control, 100 euros could‍ be sufficient.

Solmecke was already cheering in one ‍ Youtube: Your chances of receiving compensation have ‍increased significantly. However, ⁢the legal influencer had been courting clients for months demanding compensation of 1,000 euros. In the end he⁢ said: “It⁤ could be 50 euros, 250 or ⁢even 5000 euros.” Now​ the 100 euros seem rather paltry.

Those ​affected can do ‌so

Several legal tech companies ‌and law ‌firms have seized on the data leak and are aggressively publicizing the ‌warrants. Thomas Bindl,‌ founder of the legal services provider Eugd (refers cases to lawyers), sees the ruling as groundbreaking ambivalent. From his point of view, consumers have these options:

Announcement

Announcement

1. Stand-alone enforcement: Will likely continue to be difficult.

2. Hire a ‍lawyer at your own expense: The⁢ cost risk is‌ likely to ‍remain in‍ the 4-digit range, but the probability is significantly higher that you won’t get stuck.

3. Hire a lawyer with legal protection insurance:⁢ In ​the future, insurance companies will have difficulty rejecting these cases, since ‍it ‌should be clear from ⁣the sentence that there is compensation ⁢for all‍ data leaks. Bindl: “Here perhaps you just have to pay the deductible upfront, but ‍it depends on the lawyers.”

4. Using ‌a legal service provider,⁢ but you have to ⁤pay a 25% commission.

5. Sale of the credit to a ⁣legal service provider, for ⁤which they‍ were usually paid 10 to 40 euros.

Bindl: “We expect compensation ⁣of 200 to 500 ⁤euros per⁢ case.”

How can individuals⁢ prepare for‌ potential legal claims related to⁤ data breaches?

Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert Christian Solmecke

Time.news Editor⁢ (TNE): Good day, Christian! Thank you⁣ for⁣ joining ⁤us today. The recent ruling⁢ by the German⁤ Federal​ Court of Justice regarding ⁣Facebook’s data leak ⁣has caused quite a stir in⁢ the legal community and among users alike. Can you summarize⁤ the implications of this ruling for everyday users?

Christian Solmecke (CS): Absolutely! The ruling ⁣essentially affirms that users have the right to ‍seek damages when⁤ their data is compromised. In⁢ the case of the​ Facebook data leak ⁢affecting ⁣six million‍ German users, ⁣the court suggested​ that⁢ a compensation of approximately ⁤100 euros might be ⁢appropriate for users who experience simple loss of control over their data.

TNE: ⁣That’s interesting! It seems like ⁢a step forward⁤ for consumer rights. ⁣What was the rationale behind the court settling on that specific amount?

CS: The court acknowledged that while there is a breach of trust and ⁣potential harm when ‌data ⁢is mishandled, it ⁢must also‌ account for the legal principle of proportionality⁢ in damages.‍ This means a more⁣ moderate compensation is⁤ deemed suitable unless​ the plaintiff can prove a more significant loss.⁣ The idea is to⁢ balance the interests of‌ users‍ without creating ⁢an excessive burden ⁤on companies.

TNE: Some‌ critics might argue that ‌100 euros ​isn’t ‌enough for the emotional or financial‍ distress caused by a data leak. What is your take on that?

CS: You’re right; many‌ people feel ‌that the emotional distress ⁣from a data breach can be significant. However, it’s⁢ important to remember that legal frameworks can sometimes lag behind the realities of‌ technology and data privacy. The ‌courts are still figuring out how best to handle these cases, and at ⁤this moment, they are ‍leaning towards a precedent that⁣ reflects a balance between consumer protection and the economic viability of the ​company.

TNE: Your client was⁢ seeking 1,000 ​euros in​ compensation. Why do you think the court found that amount excessive?

CS: In ⁤legal terms,‍ 1,000 euros would be justified only if there’s clear evidence of substantial harm ‍to ⁤the individual. The BGH signaled that unless a ⁤user can demonstrate significant damages beyond merely losing⁣ control of their data, ‌amounts like 100 euros are more suitable. It’s a sensitive area because it sets expectations for future claims.

TNE: So what ⁢does ⁢this ruling‌ mean for the average ⁢user who feels their data has been compromised ⁤but lacks evidence of significant damages?

CS: It means that while users can claim compensation, they⁤ may need to temper their expectations. They should be prepared with evidence if they believe ‌they deserve more⁤ substantial compensation, but at‌ least now they ⁢have ⁣a legal basis to pursue claims, which is ⁤a significant move in favor of‍ consumer rights.

TNE: ⁢ Can ‌you tell us ‌how this ruling might ⁤influence‌ other companies ‌when​ it comes to data protection protocols?

CS: Definitely! Companies are likely to take this court ⁢ruling ‍seriously as it sets a precedent. They might ‌invest more ​in ​data protection to avoid potential lawsuits, especially given the‌ financial ‌implications of compensating affected users. This could lead ⁣to ⁤stronger privacy measures and accountability, which is ultimately beneficial for everyone.

TNE: As‌ a legal influencer with a ‌substantial following, how do you plan ‍to use‍ your platform to educate ​users about their rights in the wake of⁤ this ruling?

CS: I aim to ⁢create more engaging⁣ content that simplifies legal jargon around data protection laws. It’s crucial for users to understand their rights ⁣and the steps they can take if they feel their data has been compromised. ​We will continue discussing real cases, potential outcomes, and the ⁢importance of ⁣being informed—because knowledge is⁢ power in this digital age.

TNE: ⁣ Thank you,‌ Christian, ⁣for your insights. ⁤It‍ seems there’s a lot for ⁢users to⁣ gain from this ruling moving forward. We appreciate ‌you taking the‍ time to share your expertise with our audience today.

CS: ⁢Thank ⁢you for having me! It’s always a ‍pleasure‌ to‌ discuss these important ‍topics.

You may also like

Leave a Comment