Support Centre

You have out of 5 free articles left for the month

Signup for a trial to access unlimited content.

Start Trial

Continue reading on DataGuidance with:

Free Member

Limited Articles

Create an account to continue accessing select articles, resources, and guidance notes.

Free Trial

Unlimited Access

Start your free trial to access unlimited articles, resources, guidance notes, and workspaces.

Poland: WSA dismisses ClickQuickNow's appeal against UODO's decision

This story has been updated - please see the most recent update below

The Polish data protection authority ('UODO') announced, on 25 February 2021, the decision of the Provincial Administrative Court ('WSA'), issued on 10 February 2021, to dismiss the appeal brought by ClickQuickNow Sp. z o. o against the decision of the UODO to impose a fine of PLN 201,559 (approx. €44,360) on the same for its failure to facilitate the right to withdraw consent to the processing of personal data, thus violating Articles 7(3) and 12(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679) ('GDPR'). In particular, the UODO highlighted that ClickQuickNow used complicated organsiational and technical solutions to withdraw consent and processed the data of individuals who are not its clients without a legal basis, and from whom it received requests to stop processing their personal data, hence violating the exercise of the right to request the deletion of personal data (i.e. the so-called right to be forgotten).

You can read the press release, only available in Polish, here.

UPDATE: 27 November 2024

Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal and upholds UODO fine of PLN 201,559 against ClickQuickNow

On 15 November 2024, the UODO announced that the Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment issued on 12 November 2024, dismissed ClickQuickNow's appeal against the PLN 201,559 (approx. $49,195) fine imposed on it by the UODO. The Supreme Court found that the company's use of a link in commercial communications failed to facilitate a quick withdrawal of consent and misled individuals trying to revoke their consent. Additionally, the court pointed out that messages received by users did not effectively indicate that their consent had been withdrawn, as they required individuals to provide a reason for the withdrawal, which interrupted the process.

You can read the press release here.