Enforcement
10 million euro fine for Uber over unclear retention and transfer information, objection rejected
- Date
- Status
- under appeal
- Body
- Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Reference
- Boetebesluit 11 december 2023 (gepubliceerd 31 januari 2024); besluit op bezwaar 3 maart 2026 (gepubliceerd 8 mei 2026); kenmerken in gepubliceerde versie zwartgelakt
- Amount
- €10,000,000
What it is about
The Dutch DPA fined Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber B.V. a total of 10 million euro in two fines, following complaints by more than 170 French drivers via the Ligue des droits de l'homme. Uber's privacy notice did not clearly state retention periods, the non EEA countries data were transferred to, or the right to data portability. Uber also made the right of access unnecessarily hard: the access form was buried in the driver app, data were supplied in a CSV file without explanation of its structure, and the accompanying guidance notes were only available in English. The DPA found breaches of Article 12(1) and (2) and Article 13(1)(f) and (2)(a) and (b) GDPR. On 3 March 2026 the DPA rejected Uber's objection and upheld the fine. According to the DPA, Uber is appealing to the court.
What this means in practice
Your privacy notice must state concretely how long you keep data, to which non EEA countries you transfer them and which safeguards apply. The access request form must be easy to find, and data supplied in response must be structured and understandable, in plain language suited to the audience. An English only explanation is not enough when many data subjects have limited command of English.
The GDPR articles concerned
Source: Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, besluit op bezwaar boete Uberchecked on 15 September 2026
Summary and practical reading by Praxikon. Not legal advice; the source prevails.
Connections
What connects to this development
Themes where this returns
The counterpart in the other law
Case law
- Brillen Rottler: even a first access request can be abusive if made solely to claim compensation
2026-03-19 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Vierde kamer), Brillen Rottler GmbH & Co. KG tegen TC
- EDPS v SRB: pseudonymised data are not always personal data for everyone, but the information duty applies from collection
2025-09-04 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Eerste kamer), Europese Toezichthouder voor gegevensbescherming (EDPS) tegen Gemeenschappelijke Afwikkelingsraad (SRB)
- Dun & Bradstreet: right to an intelligible explanation of an automated decision, trade secrets are no absolute ground for refusal
2025-02-27 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Eerste kamer), CK tegen Magistrat der Stadt Wien, met Dun & Bradstreet Austria GmbH als andere partij
- Council of State upholds 6,000 euro DPA fine for recruitment firm
2024-05-29 · final, Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak
- SCHUFA: a credit score on which third parties draw strongly is automated decision-making
2023-12-07 · final, Hof van Justitie van de EU (Eerste kamer), OQ tegen Land Hessen, met SCHUFA Holding AG als interveniënt
- Interim relief judge: DPA must redact fine amount when giving an enforcement decision to complainants
2024-05-31 · status not established, Rechtbank Den Haag, voorzieningenrechter (kort geding, team handel)
- Council of State: DPA could fine DPG Media for routinely demanding ID copies, fine halved to 262,500 euros
2025-09-24 · final, Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak
Guidelines
- Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679
2018-05-25 · final, Article 29 Working Party, bekrachtigd door de European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
- Guidelines 1/2024 on processing of personal data based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest)
2024-10-08 · adopted, European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
- Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679
2018-05-25 · final, Article 29 Working Party, bekrachtigd door de European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
- Guidelines 1/2026 on processing of personal data for scientific research purposes
2026-04-15 · adopted, European Data Protection Board (EDPB)
- EDPB and EDPS adopt Joint Opinion 2/2026 on the Digital Omnibus
2026-02-10 · final, European Data Protection Board en European Data Protection Supervisor
Enforcement and fines
- Netflix fined 4.75 million euros for failing to properly inform customers
2024-11-26 · under appeal, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- 6,000 euro fine for Ambitious People Group for ignoring erasure requests
2020-07-30 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Dutch DPA fines Uber 824.99 million euros for automated driver deactivation
2026-08-21 · under appeal, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Experian Netherlands fined 2.7 million euros for credit scoring without legal basis or information
2025-10-16 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Clearview AI: 30.5 million euro fine and penalty orders for illegal facial database
2024-05-16 · final, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
Legislation in motion
- Proposal: no information duty in clear, non data-intensive relationships (Article 13(4) GDPR)
2025-11-19 · proposal, Europese Commissie
- Proposal: refusing requests that abuse the right of access (Article 12(5) GDPR)
2025-11-19 · proposal, Europese Commissie
- Proposal: definition of scientific research, purpose limitation and information duty for research (Article 4(38), 5(1)(b) and 13(5) GDPR)
2025-11-19 · under negotiation, Europese Commissie
- Council: Cyprus Presidency tables negotiating mandate, Coreper vote of 26 June 2026 cancelled
2026-06-22 · under negotiation, Raad van de Europese Unie, Antici-groep (vereenvoudiging) en Coreper
- Commission publishes Digital Omnibus proposal COM(2025) 837
2025-11-19 · proposal, Europese Commissie