# BGH Reviews Similarity of Claims in Redress Actions > On 25 February 2027, the BGH will consider when non-material damages claims for data protection breaches are similar under section 15 VDuG. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/bgh-reviews-similarity-of-claims-in-redress-actions/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-11-03 --- On 25 February 2027 at 11:00 a.m., the [I. Zivilsenat of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice)](https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2026/2026211.html) will hear case I ZR 232/26 (case no. I ZR 232/26) concerning the requirements for a redress action under the Verbraucherrechtedurchsetzungsgesetz (VDuG, Consumer Rights Enforcement Act). The key issue is when consumer claims are essentially similar within the meaning of [§ 15 Abs. 1 VDuG (section 15(1) of the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act)](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vdug/__15.html). The appeal on points of law concerns the judgment of the Kammergericht (Berlin Court of Appeal) of 30 April 2026 – 20 VKl 1/25 (case no. 20 VKl 1/25), which dismissed the redress action. The Bundesgerichtshof has not yet issued a decision. ## Redress action concerning alleged data protection breaches ### Parties and consumers covered The claimant is Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie (SOMI), a foundation established under Dutch law. It is included in the European Commission’s list of qualified entities pursuant to § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 VDuG (section 2(1), no. 2 of the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act). The defendant is the Irish operating company of a major social network. By way of a redress action, the claimant is pursuing claims on behalf of consumers in Germany who have registered with the Verbandsklageregister (Register of Representative Actions) and who use or have used the network with a registered account. The action was publicly announced in the Verbandsklageregister of the Bundesamt für Justiz (Federal Office of Justice) on 21 May 2025. According to the official information provided by the Bundesamt für Justiz, consumers may generally register their claims in the Verbandsklageregister until three weeks after the conclusion of the oral hearing. ### Non-material damages sought The claimant alleges that the defendant breached the General Data Protection Regulation and is seeking non-material damages on behalf of the affected consumers. The allegations are the subject of the ongoing civil proceedings and have not yet been conclusively determined by the courts. The claims asserted concern two sets of issues: - In connection with the use of tracking technologies in operating the social network, the claimant is seeking at least EUR 750 plus interest for each user. - For each affected user, it is additionally seeking at least EUR 250 plus interest on account of the defendant’s conduct in connection with a security vulnerability that became known in 2022, referred to as the API bug. According to the wording of the relief sought as published in the Verbandsklageregister, the amount of additional damages for consumers affected by data leaks is to be determined at the court’s discretion. The defendant is to pay the damages as an aggregate collective amount to a court-appointed administrator. The administrator is then to distribute the amounts to the respective eligible consumers in the implementation proceedings. ## Dismissal of the action by the Kammergericht ### Lack of similarity between the consumer claims The Kammergericht dismissed the redress action. In its assessment, the claims asserted did not, in any event, meet the requirement of essential similarity under § 15 Abs. 1 VDuG. The court based its decision on the fact that the claims depended materially on the individual circumstances of each consumer. In the Kammergericht’s view, this requirement was particularly significant because the adjudicatory proceedings were to be followed by implementation proceedings. In those proceedings, the administrator would have no authority to conduct any further examination. Nor would the individual consumers be heard at that stage. ### Individual determination of non-material damage According to the Kammergericht’s assessment, a claim for damages does not arise solely from a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation. It must additionally be established whether the person concerned suffered specific damage as a result of the breach. The court did not consider an assessment based on an average affected person to be sufficient. According to the Kammergericht, the following circumstances in particular may be relevant to determining and assessing any damage: - The nature and extent of the personal data concerned must be taken into account. - It may be relevant whether control over data that had not previously been publicly accessible was lost for the first time. - The duration and consequences of any loss of control must be considered. - It must be examined whether the person concerned developed negative feelings, such as anxiety or apprehension, as a result. - The fact that the data had previously been kept confidential and any interference with fundamental rights or comparable rights may also be material. The Kammergericht was unable to identify how the claims could be categorised and grouped in such a way as to enable the administrator to process them appropriately in the implementation proceedings. ### Requirements for standardised proof of eligibility As a further indication that the claims were insufficiently similar, the Kammergericht cited the difficulties involved in defining standardised proof of eligibility under § 16 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VDuG (section 16(2), no. 2 of the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act). Such evidence would have to be capable of establishing, among other things, the duration of a loss of control, subjective apprehensions not amounting to a medical condition, an initial loss of control and the prior confidentiality of the data. In the Kammergericht’s assessment, any interference with fundamental rights and comparable rights would also have to be reflected. It was not apparent how appropriate evidence could be prescribed in a standardised form. The court did not consider it appropriate to award uniform minimum damages without taking individual circumstances into account. In its view, moreover, it was not possible to determine minimum damages appropriate for all affected consumers. If the compensation paid in the implementation proceedings did not correspond to the claim actually due, numerous individual actions could follow. ## Subject matter of the appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof ### Interpretation of essential similarity In its appeal on points of law, the claimant continues to pursue the relief sought in its action. In particular, the Bundesgerichtshof will have to decide how the admissibility requirement of essential similarity under § 15 Abs. 1 VDuG is to be interpreted. Under this provision, a redress action is admissible only if the consumer claims covered by it are essentially similar. This requires that: - the claims are based on the same facts or on a series of essentially comparable factual circumstances; and - essentially the same questions of fact and law are material to the determination of the claims. The appeal therefore concerns the scope of a key admissibility requirement for collective actions seeking performance. The issue to be clarified is the significance of individual differences in the occurrence and assessment of non-material damage for the aggregation of claims. ### Function of the redress judgment on liability and the implementation proceedings Under § 14 VDuG (section 14 of the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act), an entity entitled to bring proceedings may use a redress action to seek an order requiring a trader to provide relief to the affected consumers. The action may also seek payment of an aggregate collective amount. If the court considers a redress action seeking such relief to be well founded in principle, it issues a redress judgment on liability pursuant to § 16 Abs. 1 VDuG (section 16(1) of the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act). Under § 16 Abs. 2 VDuG (section 16(2) of the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act), the operative part of the judgment must specify both the particular eligibility requirements and the proof of eligibility to be provided by each individual consumer in the implementation proceedings. The decision of the Bundesgerichtshof may therefore define more precisely the extent to which individual factual circumstances may preclude a redress action from the outset. Until the appeal proceedings have concluded, it remains uncertain whether the Kammergericht’s finding that the claims lacked sufficient similarity will be upheld. ## Advice on data protection matters Collective proceedings concerning alleged data protection breaches can raise significant issues for companies, investors and affected consumers regarding the processing of personal data, potential damage, and the enforcement of or defence against claims. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises clients on the legal assessment of such matters; further information is available under [legal advice on data protection law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/it-recht/datenschutz/).