> Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. Correcting incorrect

> Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. Correcting incorrect data sure, that's part of what the law grants you. But I believe this case is novel in that the data is as correct as possible (for intents and purpose of banking) yet the courts are requiring a cosmetic adjustment to the data. Cosmetic as in: it does not change the bank's or customer's understanding of the contract and business organization (i.e. I'm not trying to downplay ones attachment to accented letters, I'm talking about correct identification for business purposes). > and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything) Why not? What language in the GDPR would prevent that? It's the same violation as this case: the name is not displaying how the data subject wants it.