ABSTRACT
The analysis concerns the classification of price profiling as processing for direct marketing purposes and the scope of the obligations arising from an objection. A doctrinal legal method is used to interpret Article 21(2)-(3) GDPR, examine CJEU case law and compare selected scholarly views and data protection authorities’ positions. Under the interpretation proposed, behaviour-based price selection may serve a promotional function even in response to a customer’s enquiry, without a separate advertisement. Personalisation alone is insufficient: pricing based on the cost or risk of supplying goods or services requires a different assessment. The activity’s marketing purpose, its being directed at an individual and its connection with profiling must be established separately. The proposed interpretation is supported by the Belgian data protection authority’s position but has not been settled by the CJEU for the model examined. An objection covers preparatory operations and further marketing uses of profiling outputs attributed to the consumer, not merely new calculations. This protection does not depend on proof of loss or on the conditions governing solely automated decisions under Article 22 GDPR. Data erasure, pre-contractual steps and contract performance require separate assessment. A prohibition on a particular use of data neither determines the price nor removes the binding effect of an earlier offer.
Kawka, Jerzy and Halama, Kinga, Objecting to Consumer Price Profiling: The Scope of Direct Marketing under Article 21(2)-(3) GDPR (September 17, 2026).
Leave a Reply