Court acknowledges AP error but rejects VoetbalTV claim
The privacy regulator acted carelessly over a proposed fine, but €25,000 in damages was not proven.
The Dutch Data Protection Authority acted unlawfully in the case concerning VoetbalTV, the District Court of Midden-Nederland has ruled. The former video platform will nevertheless receive no compensation because it failed to substantiate the extent of its losses sufficiently.
The court found that the AP based its proposed enforcement decision on an overly narrow interpretation of the concept of legitimate interest in privacy law. As a result, the regulator did not fully examine whether VoetbalTV could justify processing the video footage in another way.
VoetbalTV made video recordings of matches on behalf of amateur football clubs and made them available through a platform. According to the ruling, 153 clubs were affiliated during the initial period, around 2,500 to 3,000 matches were recorded each month, and the application was used by a large audience.
Following an investigation, the AP concluded that the processing of personal data was unlawful and imposed a €575,000 fine in 2020. That fine was later annulled. In 2022, the Council of State ruled that the AP had applied the concept of legitimate interest incorrectly.
In the new proceedings, VoetbalTV sought €25,000 in damages. The company argued that the AP’s proposed action had deterred potential sponsors and football clubs, forcing the business to limit its activities as a result.
The court considered it plausible that the AP’s proposed action had affected discussions with sponsors and clubs. But the judges said there were no concrete contracts, commitments or other documents with which the claimed loss could be established. An internal calculation of damages was insufficient for that purpose.
The ruling thus distinguishes between unlawful government action and liability for a specific amount of damage. For regulators, the judgment is a warning that an incorrect legal interpretation can have consequences even before a final decision is made. For companies, the requirement remains that damage must be demonstrated separately and concretely.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- According to the court, the AP used an incorrect interpretation of legitimate interest.
- VoetbalTV received no compensation because the amount was insufficiently proven.
- The earlier €575,000 fine was annulled.
Left
Arguments Regulators must take firm action against large-scale processing of personal data, but citizens and companies must be able to trust the government to act with legal care.
Values Privacy, public accountability and protection against abuse of power.
Consequences A clear route to compensation could encourage regulators to work more carefully, but must not paralyse privacy enforcement.
Centre
Arguments Independent oversight and digital innovation can coexist if rules are clear in advance and claims for damages are supported by verifiable evidence.
Values Legal certainty, proportionality and institutional independence.
Consequences The ruling could lead to better legal scrutiny without the regulator losing its public role.
Right
Arguments A regulator should not get a young company into trouble on the basis of an overly broad interpretation. Entrepreneurs must be able to rely on stable and predictable rules.
Values Property, entrepreneurship and limits on government power.
Consequences Greater liability could make the government more cautious, but could also lead to reluctance in necessary privacy enforcement.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The ruling confirms both the AP’s unlawful conduct and the rejection of the claim for damages. The background was checked against earlier Council of State case law.
- confirmed The court ruled that the AP based its proposed decision on an incorrect interpretation of legitimate interest. — This is stated in the ruling of the District Court of Midden-Nederland. source
- confirmed VoetbalTV sought €25,000 in damages. — The amount sought is stated in the ruling. source
- confirmed The court rejected the claim for damages because the loss was insufficiently proven. — The court found the calculation of damages insufficient without contracts or other evidence. source
- confirmed The Council of State had previously annulled the €575,000 fine. — The earlier ruling describes the fine and the annulment of the decision. source
Editor's note
The legal assessment and the absence of sufficient evidence of damage come from the ruling. The court does not confirm that the AP acted too slowly; the core of the judgment is the incorrect interpretation of legitimate interest.Sources
- ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:6594 — Rechtbank Midden-Nederland
- VoetbalTV: onrechtmatig besluit AP en causaal verband, maar geen schadevergoeding — Recht.nl
- Uitspraak 202100045/1/A3 — Raad van State
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „voetbaltv privacy”
- Trouw — „voetbaltv privacy”
- NRC — „voetbaltv privacy”