Table of Contents
Can you opt out of Germany’s centralized health-data database—and what does the GFF lawsuit mean for patients with rare diseases?
What’s happening
Germany’s Society for Civil Rights (GFF) is continuing a legal case that challenges the central collection and storage of health data tied to around 73 million people with statutory health insurance.
GFF argues that research use can be legitimate, but the current setup lacks sufficient safeguards and does not provide an adequate right to object—especially for people who face higher re-identification risk, such as those with rare diseases.
How the database works (and why it matters)
The case focuses on a health database that receives large-scale insurance health data for research and related purposes, creating a high-value target if security is weak.
GFF’s stated goal is to have courts require high IT security standards for how records are merged, pseudonymized, centrally stored, and accessed by authorized users.
Core concerns raised in the lawsuit
Re-identification risk: GFF’s position is that pseudonymization can still leave people identifiable, with heightened risk for rare-disease cases.
Security standards: GFF says the law’s protections are not sufficient for a database of sensitive health information and wants “best possible” protection to prevent misuse.
Right to object: GFF argues the lack of an opt-out/objection mechanism is a key legal issue and seeks recognition of an objection right, at least for those needing special protection.
Legal basis claimed: GFF frames the issue under GDPR and Germany’s constitutional right to informational self-determination, asserting the current model does not meet those requirements.
A court case is back in motion in Germany. The Society for Civil Rights (GFF) challenges a central database that stores health data from about 73 million people with statutory health insurance. The case asks a basic question: can the state centralize sensitive health data for research without giving people a real way to object and without proving top-tier security.
The policy goal is not controversial on its face. Health-data research can serve the public interest. The dispute is about design. GFF says the current design creates avoidable risk because it concentrates sensitive information in one place and because the legal safeguards do not force strong, modern protection as a baseline.
GFF’s filings focus on two practical points. First, pseudonymization is not a magic shield. When data stays rich and linkable, identities can sometimes be inferred again—especially when a condition is rare and a person is easier to single out. Second, a database this large attracts attackers. That reality raises the standard: security must be proven, not assumed.
GFF also targets consent and control. The organization says insured people need a meaningful right to object to the processing of their data. In GFF’s view, the need is strongest for people who would be harmed most by re-identification or discrimination, including people with rare diseases.
The remedy GFF seeks is narrow but strict: a court should require high IT security standards across the full lifecycle—data merging, pseudonymization, central storage, and access by authorized users. GFF argues that these safeguards must be measured against GDPR and Germany’s constitutional protections for informational self-determination. The outcome matters beyond one institution because it sets the bar for how health research and privacy can coexist in the same system.