Disputed claim: SCHUFA report unlawful, says the BGH

The case

The case decided by the BGH (Federal Court of Justice) in its judgment of 12 May 2026 – VI ZR 375/24 dragged on for more than a decade. In 2014, following termination without notice due to outstanding instalment payments, an electricity customer received a final invoice for EUR 529.16. In the same year, he rejected the claim in writing as excessive and asked for a corrected invoice — the supplier sent him the same invoice again, unchanged. Only in 2019 did a debt collection agency (Inkasso) take over the claim, and only in 2021 and 2022 did it report it to SCHUFA as outstanding amounts of EUR 795 and EUR 817.

When a report is lawful

The BGH confirms: under Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR, a report to a credit agency is only justified if the data transferred actually allows a reliable statement about the person's ability or willingness to pay. This was lacking here in several respects: the customer had disputed the claim years before the report, the debt collection agency was unable to plausibly explain the individual invoice items in the proceedings (including a so-called "damages for non-performance" item, reminder fees and transfer fees), and the claim had not been established by a court title (nicht tituliert). Such a claim simply must not be reported.

Damage and damages

Particularly significant is how the BGH deals with the damage. The court of appeal had granted the withdrawal of the report, but had rejected a claim for damages under Art. 82 GDPR because the failure of specific contracts could not clearly be attributed to this particular report. The BGH disagrees: it is sufficient that the unlawful report impaired the SCHUFA score and that this score was accessible to potential contractual partners and was actually retrieved. According to the judgment, whether the report was the sole cause or only a contributing cause of failed contracts concerns only the amount of damages, no longer the question of whether there is any damage at all.

The BGH affirms the damage on two grounds: first, as damage to reputation through the impaired score, and second, as an independent loss of control — simply because the data at SCHUFA was retrievable by an indeterminate number of third parties and was actually retrieved. The data subject does not have to prove a feeling of helplessness or of being watched. The case is referred back to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) only because that court must now assess the amount of damages, not whether they are owed.

What data subjects can do

For data subjects, this means: if a claim that you disputed, or that cannot be comprehended, has been reported to SCHUFA, you can demand that the reporting company withdraw the report — and you will regularly also have a claim to damages in principle, the amount of which must be quantified in the individual case. Therefore, always dispute contested claims in writing and in a documented manner, and use a SCHUFA request for access (Selbstauskunft) to check whether, and with what amount, a claim has actually been reported.

Affected by a SCHUFA entry? Take the SCHUFA check and instruct me directly.