Lde:
|Jurisdiction=Germany
|Court-BG-Color=
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
|Court_Abbrevation=OLG Dresden
|Court_Original_Name=Oberlandesgericht Dresden
|Court_English_Name=Higher Regional Court Dresden
|Court_With_Country=OLG Dresden (Germany)
|Case_Number_Name=Az. 4 U 196/25
|ECLI=
|Original_Source_Name_1=beck-aktuell
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/daily/meldung/detail/olg-dresden-daten-dsgvo-meta-schadensersatz-business-tools
|Original_Source_Language_1=German
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=
|Date_Decided=03.02.2026
|Date_Published=
|Year=2026
|GDPR_Article_1=Article 6 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 6 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_2=Article 82 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 82 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_3=
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=
|GDPR_Article_4=
|GDPR_Article_Link_4=
|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Name_1=
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=
|Party_Name_1=Meta
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Link_3=
|Appeal_From_Body=
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_From_Status=
|Appeal_From_Link=
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=Not appealed
|Appeal_To_Link=
|Initial_Contributor=lde
|
}}
A court awarded €1,500 in non-material damages to a data subject after finding that Meta unlawfully tracked users across third-party websites and apps via its Business Tools without valid consent.
== English Summary ==
=== Facts ===
The data subjects were users of Instagram and Facebook whose personal data were collected through Meta’s Business Tools, including tools such as Meta Pixel, embedded on third-party websites and apps. These tools enabled Meta to track user behavior, such as page visits, clicks, and purchases, even when users were not logged in to Meta services.
The data subjects brought actions before the court seeking non-material damages.
=== Holding ===
The court held that Meta’s tracking via the Business Tools constituted unlawful processing of personal data under the GDPR due to the absence of a valid legal basis. In particular, the court found that effective and informed consent was required for such extensive tracking outside Meta’s own platforms and that Meta could not rely on any alternative justification under [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6 GDPR]].
The court further ruled that the unlawful processing resulted in non-material damage within the meaning of [[Article 82 GDPR|Article 82 GDPR]]. It emphasised that the loss of control over personal data and the resulting feeling of comprehensive surveillance were sufficient to establish harm, even without proof of concrete psychological distress or proof that the users had visited specific tracked websites.
Each of the four data subjects who had brought proceedings was awarded €1,500 in non-material damages. In addition, Meta was ordered to cease further processing of the personal data obtained through the Business Tools in relation to the claimants and to delete the unlawfully collected data.
The court did not allow an appeal to the Supreme Court, rendering the judgments final.
== Comment ==
This is a series of four cases, bearing the same outcome. The reference numbers of all four cases are the following: Az. 4 U 196/25, 4 U 292/25, 4 U 293/25, 4 U 296/25. The full text of the decisions is not published yet; this summary will be updated after the publishing.
== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”
== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.
<pre>
The Meta Group, which operates Facebook and Instagram, among other platforms, offers so-called business tools to other companies. These are application programming interfaces (APIs) that companies can install on their websites. They are used to collect personal data from website users, which the companies then share with the Meta Group. In four initial cases, the Higher Regional Court of Dresden (OLG Dresden) has now ordered Meta to pay affected Instagram users €1,500 each in non-material damages. Furthermore, Meta must cease processing personal data obtained through the business tools. The judges were convinced that the necessary user consent declarations for data processing had not been obtained. Meta could also not rely on any other justifications possible under the GDPR. Processing personal data without consent creates a loss of control, which can give affected users a feeling of being subjected to comprehensive surveillance. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) therefore considers it justified to award non-material damages under Article 82 of the GDPR even if the individual user has not suffered any psychological harm as a result. The user is also not required to prove that they visited websites that forwarded their personal data to the Meta Group using the business tools. The Higher Regional Court of Dresden did not grant leave to appeal in any of the proceedings. The judgments of February 3, 2026, are therefore final.
Editorial staff, beck-aktuell, kw, February 4, 2026.
</pre>