[quelltext]

Can anyone explain the N26 case to me?

I've tried to read two articles on it and they don't make sense.

It seems they stored data on users who closed their account to prevent money laundering, which is apparently fine if the bank actually blocks operation of those accounts according to one article.

But somehow this was not the case for those old accounts that were closed? How can you close an account but it's still an operational account? Like, was it still possible to send money to it etc.?

My guess is that the article is wrong and this was simply about them preventing legitimate users to close and then reopen a new account.

I have a hard time believing they were not allowed to keep that data for some time after acccount closing. It seems to be more about how it was used.

[londons_explore]

My guess is a user requested his data deleted, but N26 just disabled the account.

Then the user signed up again, enabling the same account.

The user then saw their old data hadn't in fact been deleted, and complained to the regulator.

[seqastian]

Are banks even allowed to wipe your whole account record? They probably have to keep most of it for tax collectors.

[pluma]

If they only kept the data that was necessary for legal compliance with tax regulations, they wouldn't have been fined. That's explicitly allowed. That they were fined suggests they just kept everything, far beyond what they had to keep.

[wigginus]

According to the annual report (https://www.zaftda.de/tb-bundeslaender/berlin/695-tb-lfd-ber...), N26 used to add all former customers to a black list, which is not allowed if there is no suspicion against them.

>>Eine schwarze Liste für ehemalige Kundinnen und Kunden, gegen die keine Verdachtsmomente bestehen, ist rechtswidrig.

translated with deepl: >>A blacklist for former customers against whom there is no suspicion is unlawful.