I was sued because I did not respond to the deletion request from my grandmother and mother who posted the picture of my grandson on Facebook and Pinterest

A grandmother who posted a photo of her grandson on Facebook and Pinterest was sued for not complying with the request to remove the photo from her daughter (grandmother's mother), and the court ordered to delete it Received. If you do not comply, you will be fined 50 euros per day.

ECLI: NL: RBGEL: 2020: 2521, Rechtbank Gelderland, C / 05/368427

Oma moet van rechter foto's van kleinkinderen van sociale media halen | NU-Het laatste nieuws het eerst op NU.nl
https://www.nu.nl/tech/6051206/oma-moet-van-rechter-fotos-van-kleinkinderen-van-sociale-media-halen.html

Oma moet foto's kleinkinderen verwijderen van sociale media | RTL Nieuws
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5122251/kort-geding-arnhem-ouders-moeder-oma-kleinkinderen-sociale-media

The complaint was a woman living in Helderland , the Netherlands, and the plaintiff was a female daughter. The plaintiff had a daughter of 14 years old, 6 years old and 4 years old with her former husband, the eldest daughter had joint custody with her ex-husband, and the second daughter and the third daughter had plaintiff custody.

The problem was that the defendant, the mother of the plaintiff, posted a picture of his grandson on Facebook and Pinterest. The plaintiff did not like the photos of their daughters to be posted on social media and told the accused to delete the photos, but the accused did not listen and decided to sue. That.

The plaintiff's allegation is that the defendant posted the photo on SNS without obtaining consent from the legal representative of his grandson, who was the subject, and his ex-husband.

The Court of First Instance of Gerderland has determined that the processing of underage photographs should be based on the consent of legal representatives, as per the GDPR implementation law UAVG in the Netherlands. In addition, in the GDPR, “(PDF file) In the case of being performed by a natural person in the course of a purely private act or a domestic act ” in Article 2 “Substantive Scope”, Item 2 (C) is not applicable. Yes, but the court has determined that it is impossible to reliably prove that this item applies.

As a result, the accused is required to delete all photos of his grandson from SNS within 10 days, and if not deleted, a fine of 50 euros (about 5900 yen) per day excess will be imposed. That.

In addition, the accused acknowledges that he has posted his grandson's photo on Facebook, and on top of that, most of the photos have already been deleted in honor of his grandson's privacy. However, I lived with my 14-year-old grandson from 2012 to 2019, so I wanted to keep just one photo online, but the plaintiffs didn't allow it.

Neil Brown, a lawyer familiar with the internet and tech, noted that the court had no information about how the access rights of the defendant's account were set, `` (not everyone can see). If you strictly applied the browsing restrictions, it may be considered as 'in-home use'. '

The court did not have information about how the grandmother restricted viewing of her account (from other people, as well as search engines), or what controls there were on re-distribution.

If restrictions were in placing, it might have met the test for “domestic purposes”. Pic.twitter.com/bakg26Tq0y

— Neil Brown (@neil_neilzone) May 21, 2020

However, Lawyer Braun also questioned whether 'private life' really exists if the photos are released to the world without permission and passed through 'for home use'.

-why should we not each have autonomy over our own data, and images of ourselves, and be free to decide how, when, and where those things get published? Can we truly have 'private lives' if anyone can post a photo of us to the world, and claim 'domestic purposes'?

— Neil Brown (@neil_neilzone) May 21, 2020