Lusha Systems Inc. – €2,000,000 Fine (Italy, 2026)

Lusha Systems Inc. (the controller) operated a subscription-based platform that provided professional contact information through a business-to-business (B2B) database. It was a US company wholly owned by Lusha Systems Ltd. In April 2025, the Italian DPA (Garante) initiated an investigation after media reports revealed that telephone numbers of senior Italian officials were available on the platform. The DPA later received one complaint and one report from data subjects who had received unsolicited advertising communications. The data subjects further stated that after requesting information about the source of their contact details, they discovered that their data were available on the controller’s platform without their consent. The controller explained that, for a subscription fee, it provided its Clients with a Business Contact Card for each Contact. The controller further distinguished between “Clients”, namely customers who used the platform and accessed its B2B database, and “Contacts”, namely the individuals whose personal data were included in that database, regardless of whether they used or were aware of the platform. Clients received Contact Cards containing information such as names, professional email addresses, telephone numbers, job titles, roles and locations, which could be used for sales, marketing, recruitment, business intelligence and fraud prevention. The DPA limited its investigation to the processing of Contacts’ personal data. The controller stated that it collected and combined data from publicly available sources, specialised providers, affiliated companies and commercial partners. It also inferred missing professional email addresses through algorithms that identified standard company email patterns. Through its Community Program and integrations with email, calendar and CRM services, it could also obtain information from Clients’ professional networks and communications. The data were cross-referenced, enriched and regularly updated to reflect changes in Contacts’ professional circumstances. The controller argued that the GDPR did not apply because it was established outside the EU and provided services only to businesses. It additionally claimed that the weekly updating of Contact Cards ensured accuracy rather than constituting monitoring or profiling. The controller maintained that the collection and disclosure of the data were necessary for its own economic interest in providing accurate professional contact information and for its Clients’ interests, including fraud prevention. According to the controller, it processed only a limited range of information concerning the Contacts’ professional lives. It further claimed that individuals who made professional information publicly available, particularly through services such as LinkedIn, could reasonably expect that the information might be reused and that they could be contacted regarding professional opportunities. Regarding transparency, the controller stated that its Personal Information Notice was sent to each Contact before their information became available in the database. It explained that it notified Contacts that they had a seven-day period during which they could opt out before their information became available to Clients. The controller also maintained that excluding public officials and public figures from the database was not a requirement under the GDPR. It attributed the presence of certain public officials to technical limitations in its filtering system. It also argued that public figures had a lower expectation of privacy. After the proceedings began, the controller removed profiles connected with Italian public bodies and officials, strengthened its filters and customer-verification measures, discontinued the Community Program in Italy and extended the opt-out period to fourteen days. Regarding the territorial scope of the GDPR, the DPA acknowledged that Article 3(2)(a) GDPR could apply to the processing of Clients’ data, but not to Contacts, since they were not recipients of the service. However, it held that Article 3(2)(b) GDPR applied because the controller systematically combined, enriched and updated Contacts’ professional information in order to assess their circumstances and determine whether and how they would appear in the database. Referring to Recital 24 and Recital 30, the DPA held that monitoring did not require profiling. It noted that the systematic observation of online traces and changes in a person’s professional situation was sufficient. The fact that the processing also served data accuracy did not alter that conclusion. It emphasised that the fact that the controller also updated the information to ensure its accuracy did not prevent the processing from constituting monitoring. Regarding transparency, the DPA found that the information concerning the collection of the Contacts’ data, the purposes of the processing and the legal basis relied upon was scattered across several documents. Also, the relevant information was not easily accessible from the controller’s homepage, while the Personal Information Notice could not be located directly through the website without prior knowledge of its existence. It further pointed out that the documents were provided in English rather than in the language of the affected data subjects. The DPA held that presenting the information in this manner did not satisfy the requirement that information be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible. It therefore found an infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 12 GDPR. Moreover, the DPA assessed whether Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provided a valid legal basis for the processing. It examined the controller’s Legitimate Interest Assessment and considered it essentially non-existent, as it contained only generic statements on necessity and proportionality and no genuine balancing assessment. The DPA then applied the three-part test under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. It held that making the Contacts’ data available to Clients for their own marketing and sales activities could not constitute a legitimate interest, since the disclosure of contact information to third parties for their independent advertising purposes required prior consent under the applicable national and ePrivacy frameworkThe DPA's reasoning on this point is somewhat complex. Article 13 of the ePrivacy Directive (and its national implementation in Art. 130 d. lgs. 196/2003) only allows unsolicited marketing communications with the user's prior consent (save for certain narrow exceptions). In the case at hand, this requirement prevented the controller's Clients from carrying out their marketing and advertising activities with regards to contacts provided by the controller. On these grounds, the DPA held that the controller had no legitimate interest to disclose contacts for advertising and marketing use.. However, it acknowledged that the controller’s interest in fraud prevention could be considered legitimate. The DPA nevertheless found that the processing was not necessary for the purposes pursued. It held that the controller collected information extending beyond ordinary professional contact details, including third-party data contained in CRM databases, email headers and subject lines, information about calendar meetings, and browsing data collected through browser extensions or other software integrations used by Clients. It pointed out that much of this information was not publicly available but was extracted from private interpersonal communications, disclosed by Clients, obtained through integrations with information systems or acquired from third-party providers. The DPA held that the collection and combination of such extensive information was neither strictly necessary nor proportionate for creating professional Contact Cards. Furthermore, it stressed that fraud prevention could also have been achieved through less intrusive means. The DPA therefore concluded that the necessity requirement and the principle of data minimisation were not met. Regarding the balancing test, the DPA emphasised that there was no prior relationship between the controller and the Contacts. Creating a professional profile on LinkedIn or another professional platform did not create a reasonable expectation that unpublished contact details would be collected from multiple sources, continuously updated and disclosed to an unspecified number of paying customers. It further noted that the processing could expose Contacts to communications from unknown third parties for purposes they could not reasonably anticipate. The DPA concluded that the Contacts’ interests, rights and freedoms prevailed over the controller’s economic interests and that the safeguards adopted by the controller could not change this outcome. Therefore, the DPA held that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR did not provide an appropriate legal basis and found that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and Article 6 GDPR. Regarding public officials, the DPA held that their status did not reduce their entitlement to data protection and that no public interest justified disclosing their direct contact details for commercial purposes. The DPA further found that the controller had been aware of the risk that public officials could be included in its database but had failed to implement sufficiently effective technical and organisational measures. Its filters recognised general titles such as “President” but failed to exclude more specific titles such as “President of the Italian Republic” and “Vice Prime Minister”. The DPA therefore found an infringement of the principle of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and the obligation of data protection by design and by default under Article 25 GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €2,000,000. Furthermore, it prohibited any further processing of personal data of data subjects located in Italy that had been collected without an adequate legal basis and ordered their deletion.