Post by mistyssaktersfo33 on Jan 8, 2024 1:02:05 GMT -5
Fines of euros due to mass harassment of inaccessible data and Easter eggs. Austria's highest court ruled that Mr Schrems will receive monetary damages in euros because he was not provided with full access to his data. The court found that he had received neither all the original data nor key information such as the legal basis for processing his data. The court highlighted that the data provided through its online tool was spread across multiple data categories with hundreds or even thousands of data points that would take hours to mine. The court stated in paragraph 1 that the plaintiff correctly stated that the request was based on a one-time visit and not an Easter egg hunt.
The Austrian Supreme Court also responded very clearly to the claim that Mr. had been provided with all the data he considered relevant. The fact that the obligation to provide information in paragraph 1 cannot be relied upon solely on the defendant's self-assessment does not require further explanation. burden of proof. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly stressed that Email Marketing List there is a burden of proof to prove that full access has been granted or that the data processing is lawful. The position taken during the course of the proceedings was that it was up to Mr Schrems to prove that not all data had been provided and that he had simply refused to answer Mr Schrems' questions. The case calls into question the role of gamers on the platform.
Argued that he was primarily responsible for his own profile or message data legally as data controller which meant that his instructions such as deletion of data had to be followed only as a processor over all user data with some exceptions. The Austrian Supreme Court stated that the issue was irrelevant because the use fell within the family exception and therefore the case did not stand. Technically we lost on this, but the court said it would file complaints against eight streaming services for failing to properly respond to simple access requests.
The Austrian Supreme Court also responded very clearly to the claim that Mr. had been provided with all the data he considered relevant. The fact that the obligation to provide information in paragraph 1 cannot be relied upon solely on the defendant's self-assessment does not require further explanation. burden of proof. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly stressed that Email Marketing List there is a burden of proof to prove that full access has been granted or that the data processing is lawful. The position taken during the course of the proceedings was that it was up to Mr Schrems to prove that not all data had been provided and that he had simply refused to answer Mr Schrems' questions. The case calls into question the role of gamers on the platform.
Argued that he was primarily responsible for his own profile or message data legally as data controller which meant that his instructions such as deletion of data had to be followed only as a processor over all user data with some exceptions. The Austrian Supreme Court stated that the issue was irrelevant because the use fell within the family exception and therefore the case did not stand. Technically we lost on this, but the court said it would file complaints against eight streaming services for failing to properly respond to simple access requests.