Advocate General Spielmann: Consent for Direct Marketing by an Undertaking’s “Partners” Is Valid Only Where Their Identity Is Known

In his Opinion in Case C-317/25, Groupe Canal +, delivered on September 17, 2026, Advocate General Dean Spielmann of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) considered that consent given to an undertaking for its “partners” to use personal data for direct marketing purposes is valid only if the identity of those partners is known to the data subject. Otherwise, fresh consent must be obtained before the marketing takes place.

The case concerns electronic direct marketing campaigns commissioned by Groupe Canal + in 2021, targeting approximately 3.9 million individuals. The personal data used in those campaigns had been collected by two internet service providers (“ISPs”). At the time of collection, subscribers had consented to the use of their personal data for marketing purposes by the providers’ “partners”, without those partners being specifically identified.

The Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (“CNIL”), the French Data Protection Authority, found that Groupe Canal + did not have valid consent for the marketing campaigns and imposed a fine of €600,000. Groupe Canal + challenged that decision before the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France), which referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Within the scope of the Opinion, the following key points were highlighted:

• Identification of recipients and valid consent:
  Advocate General Spielmann considered that consent given to an ISP for the use of personal data by a category of recipients, such as its “partners”, does not, in itself, authorize every undertaking within that category to carry out direct marketing activities. For consent to be valid, it must be freely given, specific, sufficiently informed and unambiguous. In particular, the data subject must be able to know the identity of the data controller.
• Requirement to obtain fresh consent:
  Where the identity of the undertaking carrying out the direct marketing was not known when the initial consent was obtained, fresh consent must be obtained before the marketing takes place, at the latest at the time of the first communication.
• Unsubscribing does not remedy the lack of prior consent:
  The possibility of unsubscribing upon receipt of the first marketing communication does not compensate for the absence of valid prior consent. Since the possibility to unsubscribe arises only after the marketing campaign has begun, it cannot replace the prior consent required.
• Precision of the category of recipients:
  In light of his conclusion that the identity of the recipients must be known, the Advocate General considered that there was no need to answer the question concerning the degree of precision required for a “category” of recipients. However, he provided an alternative clarification: if a category of recipients were considered sufficient, it would need to be defined with enough precision for the data subject to reasonably expect to be contacted by the undertaking in question. In his view, the term “partners” is too vague to meet that requirement.

The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. The Judges of the CJEU will deliberate on the case, and judgment will be delivered at a later date. The CJEU will not decide the national dispute; the Conseil d’État will ultimately determine the dispute in accordance with the CJEU’s ruling.

You can access the Opinion and the official press release here.

Kind regards,
Zumbul Attorneys-at-Law
info@zumbul.av.tr

All information and documents available on our website have been prepared by Zümbül Hukuk ve Danışmanlık solely for general informational purposes, taking into consideration the Attorneyship Law and other applicable legislation, as well as the Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations. These publications are not intended for advertising and/or commercial purposes. The information and documents available on our website are of a general nature, and no representation or guarantee is made that such publications are complete, accurate, up-to-date or reliable. No action should be taken in reliance on the information contained in these publications without first consulting a lawyer or other qualified professional. Any links provided in our publications have been obtained from publicly available sources and are included solely to facilitate visitors’ access to further information and documents. Such links do not constitute a recommendation or endorsement of the persons, institutions or organizations to which they refer. The publications available on our website do not constitute legal advice and do not establish an attorney-client relationship with any visitor who accesses our website in any manner. All content published on our website is the property of Zümbül Hukuk ve Danışmanlık and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission or used without proper attribution.