Spain's Supreme Court has ruled against Cofidis. A borrower's disputed loan could not be treated as an uncontested debt, and the lender must pay €2,000 for damage to her honor.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Cofidis, S.A. violated a borrower's right to honor by placing her details in ASNEF-EQUIFAX while she was challenging the validity of the loan. The decision sets limits on how lenders use debt registers when a borrower disputes the amount owed or the legal basis of the debt. Cofidis must pay €2,000 in compensation.
The ruling focuses on the status of the debt when it was registered. Under article 20.1.b) of Organic Law 3/2018 on data protection, a debt must be certain, due and enforceable. The debtor must not have formally challenged its existence or amount. The rule protects the right to honor recognised in article 18.4 of the Spanish Constitution.
The judgment is identified as STS 1314/2026 of 23 July, with the European Case Law Identifier ECLI:ES:TS:2026:3502.
The Supreme Court said this was not a case of a borrower simply refusing to pay an established bill. The woman questioned whether the contract was usurious. She challenged clauses she considered abusive and sought the return of sums she believed had been wrongly charged. If her claims were accepted, the amount demanded could have fallen or the balance could even have shifted in her favor.
That difference decides the case. A debt register is meant to record genuine payment defaults tied to a person's solvency. It cannot be used to pressure someone while a serious formal dispute concerns the existence or amount of the debt.
The dispute began on 5 April 2022 with an extrajudicial complaint. The borrower raised the possible usurious nature of the agreement, asked for allegedly abusive clauses to be removed and said she was willing to reach an arrangement without going to court. She filed a claim for annulment based on usury on 3 June 2022.
The available independent case-law summary confirms the judgment’s legal basis and €2,000 award, but does not include a full official press release from the Supreme Court of Spain or a direct comment from Cofidis or ASNEF.
Four months later, on 6 October 2022, Cofidis reported her details to ASNEF-EQUIFAX over a debt of slightly more than €3,700. The company argued that it had not received the court summons when the listing was made. The Civil Chamber rejected that defence. Cofidis already knew that the contract had been challenged and that legal action was being pursued. The lawsuit had been filed before the data were sent.
The lender kept the information on the register after it was served with the proceedings. The data remained there until April 2023. The Supreme Court said this continued listing made it even harder to treat the obligation as peaceful or undisputed.
The first-instance court in Zaragoza and the Provincial Court had rejected the borrower's claim for protection of her honor. The Supreme Court overturned that outcome in Judgment No. 1314/2026 of 23 July. It relied on established case law stating that registers should concern people who unjustifiably cannot or will not pay. They should not include people who have a legitimate dispute over whether a debt exists or how much is owed. A case-law summary published by Garcia Montoliu also describes the ruling as applying article 20.1.b) of Organic Law 3/2018 to a debt that had been seriously challenged before registration.
The compensation was not calculated by a fixed formula. Article 9.3 of Organic Law 1/1982 creates an irrebuttable presumption of compensable harm when an unlawful interference with honor is proven. The amount then depends on factors such as how long the person remained on the register and how widely the data were disclosed. Here, the entry was not exceptionally long. Only two entities were shown to have consulted the data, and there was no evidence that financing had actually been refused. The court set moral damages at €2,000 and noted that lower awards can sometimes be merely symbolic.
The practical point is narrow. An unpaid instalment does not automatically justify adding someone to a debt register. Once a lender knows that the contract itself is being challenged through a serious judicial or formal procedure, continuing to present the borrower as an ordinary defaulter can turn a credit-control tool into unlawful pressure. Creditors must distinguish an inability or unjustified refusal to pay from a genuine dispute over the basis of the debt. That is the legal boundary protecting accurate solvency information and the borrower's honor.
The judgment does not mean that every disputed claim must disappear from a register. The dispute must be assessed before the listing and while it continues. The Zaragoza case shows why timing matters. The complaint came before the registration. The lawsuit came before the communication to ASNEF-EQUIFAX. The entry remained after the lender knew about the proceedings. Readers dealing with a contested loan can also consult this earlier legal report for another example of how Spanish courts and institutions handle rights-based disputes. On the facts established here, the Supreme Court drew a firm line: debt registers are for reliable evidence of default, not for settling a contract fight.
