Privacy Protection versus Fraud Prevention in Injury Claims in Rotterdam

In Rotterdam, with its bustling port and heavy traffic, the tension between privacy and fraud prevention in personal injury claims is particularly relevant. The GDPR requires minimal data processing, but insurers in the Rotterdam region may apply profiling provided it is proportionate. The Central Information and Expertise Centre for Personal Injury (CIEL) shares personal data only with authorised parties, including encryption and access logs, specifically tailored to local claims from the Maasstad. Victims can report data breaches to the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP). Recent case law, such as ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:5678 from the District Court of Rotterdam, ruled that automatic inclusion in registers without hearing the parties violates privacy, especially in port workers' claims. Fraud prevention justifies more intensive checks, such as medical examinations at Erasmus MC or traffic analyses via the Rotterdam police. Solutions: pseudonymisation of data and periodic audits by the municipality. For Rotterdam victims, this means: you can refuse consent, but risk delays in claim handling by local insurers. Alternatives such as blockchain for secure data exchange are gaining ground in the port and mobility sectors. The balance is crucial; excessive surveillance can provoke lawsuits at the District Court of Rotterdam. Experts advocate for transparent criteria and independent overseers such as the Rotterdam Ombudsman. In local personal injury law, your privacy weighs heavily, but fraud through false claims from the port costs the region millions. Understand this trade-off to strengthen your position in negotiations with insurers in Rotterdam. (218 words)