Germany taz
Ruling of the Federal Court of Justice: Schufa must become more transparent
How the Schufa score is calculated is unclear. If the value is bad and a contract is in danger, people should now get information more easily. more...
Deutsch (original) ·Auto-translated to English
afp | The credit reporting agency Schufa must inform consumers about how their Schufa value came about – under certain conditions. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe specified what these are on Wednesday. The consumers must therefore prove that the requirements are met (ref. I ZR 227/25 and others).
The decisions concern the old Schufa basic score and the previous legal situation. A new Schufa score has been available since March and is intended to completely replace the old values by the end of 2028 at the latest. This new score makes it easier for consumers to view the data stored about them.
Schufa evaluates the creditworthiness of individual consumers based on collected data. Based on this, companies can estimate the likelihood of someone paying their bills. Banks, for example, online retailers and energy suppliers use it.
In the cases on which the BGH has now decided, private individuals in Saxony still sued under the old legal situation and the old score. They demanded information about how their Schufa value was calculated. The Dresden Higher Regional Court largely agreed with them.
Schufa went to the BGH, where it was now formally successful. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the Dresden rulings because the Higher Regional Court had not found out whether all the requirements were met. This means: whether the score has significantly affected those affected and whether decisions made by others depend on it. The higher regional court must now hear again.
With regard to Schufa, for example, the requirements are met if someone cannot get a loan because their credit score is too bad. The consumer has to prove whether that was the case. However, the requirements for this proof should not be too high, as the BGH said. It is sufficient if the plaintiff states that his value was passed on to a company and that a decision that was disadvantageous to him was made in connection with this.
The BGH rulings apply to the current situation. They will probably not play a major role in the future, as the law provides for more transparency anyway.