German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgment of 20 February 2018, VI ZR 30/17, Ärztebewertung III (Jameda)
Balancing of interests in the case of rating portals: neutrality as the central criterion; changes to the business model lead to a fresh assessment.
1 Overview
In this decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) reassessed the lawfulness of a physician rating portal from the perspective of the right to informational self-determination. Unlike in the earlier Jameda decisions, the BGH no longer regarded the portal as a neutral information intermediary, because the operator presented paying customers more favorably than non-paying physicians.
Reference: BGH, judgment of 20 February 2018, VI ZR 30/17, NJW 2018, 1884
2 Neutrality as a criterion in the balancing exercise
The BGH classifies the neutrality of the portal operator as the central criterion in the balancing exercise. As long as the portal presents generally accessible information about physicians in a neutral manner, the users' interest in information and the freedom of communication outweigh the physicians' right of personality. Where neutrality is abandoned by favoring paying customers, the balance tips the other way.
3 Significance for Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
That case law has been continued under the GDPR. The benchmark of neutrality shapes the balancing of interests in the case of portals rating individuals, credit information agencies and comparable information intermediaries. Commercial interests alone do not support the processing once the controller abandons the position of a neutral information intermediary.
About the author
About the author
This article was written by Dr. Thomas Helbing, specialist lawyer for IT law in Munich.
Since 2020 and continuously through today (2026), Handelsblatt has recognized Dr. Helbing as one of "Germany's Best Lawyers" in IT law and data protection law.
According to Kanzleimonitor.de (2024 to 2026 editions), he ranks among the leading lawyers for data protection and IT law and is listed among the top 100 lawyers in Germany (2024/25). Kanzleimonitor is considered a particularly meaningful market study because it is based exclusively on personal recommendations from in-house counsel.
Dr. Helbing has many years of advisory experience in data protection and IT law and advises clients of all sizes, from startups through fast-growing SaaS companies and unicorns to international corporate groups.
His professional background covers the full spectrum of IT and technology law practice. He began his career at a major international law firm, then gained in-house experience at a DAX-listed company, and is himself an entrepreneur and founder of several digital ventures. He also has hands-on programming experience, which allows him to understand technical systems, software architectures and digital business models not only from a legal perspective but also from a technical one.
For many years, his clients have included technology companies and SaaS providers, leading German research institutions and a systemically important German bank. His advisory focus lies in particular on GDPR compliance, the data economy, SaaS, AI regulation and IT contract law.
German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), judgment of 27 March 2019, 6 C 2/18
Article 6(1)(e) GDPR does not apply to private parties in the absence of an act conferring public authority; requirements for the national legal basis.
CJEU, judgment of 27 October 2022, C-129/21, Proximus
Objection to direct marketing under Article 21 GDPR and further use of publicly accessible data in telephone directories.