Developing
Based on a press release only; the written reasons were not published and the court's press office had no further information.
In 60 seconds
- The BGH's I. Civil Senate (press release No. 198/2026; cases I ZR 227/25 to I ZR 230/25) set aside four Dresden Higher Regional Court judgments of October 7, 2025.
- It found SCHUFA's scoring meets the profiling and "decision" characteristics of Article 22(1) GDPR.
- Claimants need only show a score was transmitted and a disadvantageous decision followed closely in time, which creates a factual presumption that the score was decisive.
- SCHUFA's 2023 letters listing twelve months of transmitted scores "did not fulfil" the disclosure obligation.
Impact Layer
- What changed
- Germany's top civil court has set out how Article 22 and disclosure rights apply to credit scores, while sending the cases back.
- Why it matters
- Scores used by lenders and retailers for pay-later and credit decisions face transparency duties that affect any business using them.
- Who is affected
- Credit agencies, retailers offering invoice or instalment payment, and privacy teams.
- Martech stack area
- Data, Commerce
- Stack impact
- If you rely on third-party scores in checkout, ask your provider how it will meet disclosure requests and keep a record of which decisions used a score.
- Business impact
- Moderate Based on PPC Land's reading of the court's press release. What SCHUFA must show to rebut the presumption, how much scoring detail must be disclosed and when the written reasons or Dresden's new ruling arrive are not stated. Not legal advice.
- Related technologies
- What to watch
- The published reasons and Dresden's ruling on remand.
On October 21, 2026 Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH), I. Civil Senate, issued press release No. 198/2026 on four parallel cases (I ZR 227/25 to I ZR 230/25), according to PPC Land. The full written reasons are unpublished.
The outcome
The BGH set aside four Higher Regional Court of Dresden judgments dated October 7, 2025, which had ordered SCHUFA Holding AG to disclose how the claimants’ scores were calculated, and referred the cases back. The regional courts in Chemnitz, Leipzig and Görlitz had first rejected the information claims.
Key findings
- SCHUFA’s scoring meets the profiling and “decision” characteristics under Article 22(1) GDPR.
- Dresden’s findings did not allow it to assess whether the claimants were significantly affected.
- Claimants need only show that a score was transmitted and a disadvantageous decision followed closely in time, creating a factual presumption that the score was decisive.
- SCHUFA’s 2023 letters listing twelve months of transmitted scores did not meet the disclosure obligation. The CJEU ruling C-634/21 of December 7, 2023 is the legal anchor.
Not stated
Whether any claimant suffered a refusal, what SCHUFA must show to rebut the presumption, how much scoring detail must be disclosed, how pre-trial lawyers’ fees will be decided, and when the written reasons and Dresden’s ruling will arrive.
Our read
The direction is more transparency. This is a news summary, not legal advice.
Sources
- PPC Land: SCHUFA wins four appeals over credit score disclosure at German top court (opens in a new tab)
Source for the court's findings and what is not stated.