Data errors should cost the AOK Baden-Württemberg a fine of 1.2 million euros.

You can now see them more and more often, the data protection information posted for customers. In order to fulfill the obligation of Art. 13 and Art. 14 GDPR, many retailers, but also medical practices, use the possibility of a notice in the business premises. In these documents, the basic data processing conditions of the respective company are then communicated to interested customers, sometimes more or less in detail.

For this reason, the German data protection supervisory authorities saw themselves prompted at the data protection conference on May 12, 2020 to resolve and publish new information on the use of Google Analytics.

On Tuesday morning yesterday, the federal government, the Robert Koch Institute and the companies involved officially presented the federal government’s corona warning app. At the same time, they called for widespread use of the app. With the help of the Corona app, chains of infection should be made easier to understand. The general GDPR conformity of the app has already been confirmed by the managing director of TÜV Informationstechnik.

After the official presentation, many employers now face the question of whether the installation of the Corona app is permissible on employees’ private and company cell phones.

The data protection conference has decided on a concept for the assessment of the GDPR fine in proceedings against companies, which specifies the abstract catalog of criteria from Art. 83 GDPR. The aim is to obtain a transparent and case-by-case form of fine assessment. The concept is intended to serve as a national guideline for the calculation of fines until the European Data Protection Committee issues Union-wide harmonized guidelines.

Many employers have an interest in receiving a police clearance certificate from their applicants and future employees to check whether they have already had a criminal record. But is that even permissible? We will explain this fact in this article.

As early as October 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that when a website is accessed, the setting of cookies requires the active consent of the website visitor. This does not include cookies that are technically necessary to ensure the functionality of the website. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has now updated its guidelines on consent for websites and once again emphasized the urgent need for correct cookie consent. Learn more about this in our blog article.

On May 25, 2018, the GDPR came into force and caused a lot of dust in some companies. The excitement was great back then, but it has now subsided. Many detailed questions that were still open in 2018 have been clarified. Other problems are still waiting for a clear positioning by the supervisory authorities or a court decision. We look back on the past 2 years and highlight some highlights in data protection.

With the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation on May 25, 2018 and the new Federal Data Protection Act, numerous companies had to appoint a data protection officer (DPO). The company can choose an internal or an external data protection officer. There is no general answer to whether an internal or external data protection officer is the better choice. We clarify the difference between external and internal DPOs. We’ll also name a few advantages and disadvantages that each selection can have.