Mass damage claims for GDPR infringements: a multi-jurisdictional perspective
G. Potjewijd, S.V. Yakovleva, F. Aguilar de Carvalho, C. Derrig, J. Fulton, S. Gallage-Alwis, A. Ferreres Comella en V. Wettner
This contribution discusses mass claims seeking non-material damages for data privacy infringements under Articles 80 and 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It contributes to the understanding of these provisions by offering a comparative perspective of how they were implemented in France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and the UK (collectively referred to in this article as 'covered jurisdictions'). The authors highlight the points of convergence and divergence regarding the implementation of Articles 80 and 82 GDPR in these jurisdictions and analyse the interaction between domestic regimes on collective actions and the GDPR. This article also offers initial thoughts on the interplay between the above-mentioned GDPR provisions on mass damage claims and the recently adopted Consumer Redress Directive, which includes the GDPR in the material scope of its application.
1. Introduction
The GDPR promised individua...
U heeft op dit moment geen toegang tot de volledige inhoud van dit product. U kunt alleen de inleiding en hoofdstukindeling lezen.
Wanneer u volledige toegang wenst tot alle informatie kunt u zich abonneren of inloggen als abonnee.
Verder in dit artikel:
1. Introduction
2. Overview by jurisdiction
2.1. France
2.1.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.1.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.1.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.1.4. Compensation for non-material damages
2.2. Germany
2.2.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.2.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.2.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.2.4. Compensation for non-material damages
2.3. Ireland
2.3.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.3.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.3.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.3.4. Compensation for non-material damages
2.4. Netherlands
2.4.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.4.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.4.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.4.4. Compensation for non-material damages
2.5. Spain
2.5.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.5.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.5.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.5.4. Compensation for non-material damages
2.6. Portugal
2.6.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.6.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.6.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.6.4. Compensation for non-material damages
2.7. United Kingdom
2.7.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
2.7.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
2.7.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
2.7.4. Compensation for non-material damages
3. Cross-jurisdictional analysis
3.1. Availability of mass damage claims with a mandate (Article 80(1) GDPR)
3.2. Availability of mass damage claims without a mandate
3.2.1. Divergent approaches in the covered jurisdictions
3.2.2. Interaction between domestic laws allowing mass damage claims without a mandate and the GDPR
3.2.3. Interaction between Consumer Redress Directive and the GDPR on mass damage claims without a mandate
3.3. Requirements for qualified not-for-profit organisations
3.4. Compensation for non-material damages
4. Conclusion
