Belgian DPA Fines Belgian Telecommunications Provider for Several Data Protection Infringements
Time 2 Minute Read

On July 30, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €20,000 fine on Belgian telecommunications provider Proximus N.V. (“Proximus”) for several data protection infringements related to Proximus’ public directory. In particular, the claimant requested that Proximus remove his contact details from the public directory and inform other publishers of public directories not to publish his personal data. Despite informing the claimant that it was going to proceed accordingly, Proximus still published his personal data in its public directory and shared it with other publishers of public directories.

In Belgium, consent to the publication of contact details in a public directory is regulated under the telecommunications law, which implements the ePrivacy Directive. As stated under Article 95 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), consent under the ePrivacy Directive must meet the consent requirements of the GDPR.

In light of the above, the Litigation Chamber found that:

  • Proximus qualifies as a data controller when it determines the purposes and means of the processing and takes the initiative of the processing activities, in particular when Proximus (1) requests, consults and stores the claimant’s personal data; (2) makes the claimant’s personal data available in its public directory; (3) shares the claimant’s personal data with third-party providers of directories.
  • As the data controller, Proximus failed to provide clear and transparent information to the claimant regarding the processing activities and failed to facilitate the exercise of the claimant’s data subject rights.
  • Proximus unlawfully processed the claimant’s personal data despite the claimant’s consent withdrawal request.
  • Proximus did not take appropriate technical and organizational measures as it did not inform third-party controllers of the claimant’s consent withdrawal request. In light of this, subsequent processing by third-party controllers was unlawful.
  • Proximus unlawfully transferred personal data to third-party providers of public directories in the absence of a valid legal basis.

The full decision is only available in Dutch.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The Connecticut Attorney General recently issued a legal memorandum regarding the application of existing Connecticut laws, such as the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, to the use of artificial intelligence.

Time 2 Minute Read

On February 23, 2026, a Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery was published by 61 data protection authorities. The Joint Statement addresses concerns regarding AI systems capable of generating realistic images and videos depicting identifiable individuals without their knowledge or consent.

Time 6 Minute Read

On February 9, 2026, trade association NetChoice filed a lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s newly passed Age-Appropriate Code Design (“SC AACD”) on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The SC AACD was signed into law on February 5, 2026, making South Carolina the fifth U.S. state to enact such a law, following California, Maryland, Nebraska and Vermont.

Time 2 Minute Read

Congress has extended the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 through September 30, 2026 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, a government funding package enacted in early February 2026.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page