Privacy & Data Protection
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.09
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT
On 19 August 2009, the German discounter Lidl has again been condemned to a 36.000 EUR fine by the German Data Protection Authority for unlawful processing of personal data of its personnel.
A year after the scandal where Lidl was found to have been spying on its employees via surveillance cameras, documents were found in a dumpster indicating that Lidl was unlawfully collecting information about its employees' medical conditions.
Such personal data is sensitive and can only be processed under strict conditions, which were clearly absent here. The personal data collected were moreover also supplemented with comments such as 'operated from tumor, but benign' or 'wants to be pregnant, but fertility issues'.
Lidl admitted to having collected the records but alleged this was only with the purpose of relocating its employees to more fitting positions. This position was, however, not accepted and Lidl was condemned by the German Data Protection Authority to pay a 36.000 EUR fine for violating general principles of German privacy law..
Although this fine is significantly lower than the 1,5 million EUR Lidl had to pay last year, it is a clear indication that Data Protection Authorities more and more actively act against privacy law violations. Also, the fine remained rather low, because the violations were only proven with respect to 4 German branches of Lidl, while the suspicion existed that more branches did collect sensitive personal data in an unlawful manner.
On 14 August 2009, the German federal legislator changed Germany's Privacy Act, now including specific provisions for employer-employee relationships, giving the German Data Protection Authority clearer yardsticks in similar situations in the future.
References: Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 14. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 66), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 15 Abs. 53 des Gesetzes vom 5. Februar 2009 (BGBl. I S. 160)
Links: https://www.ldi.nrw.de/
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
