- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 2025-1.049.138 – €25,500 Fine (Austria, 2026)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A digital marketing agency was fined €25,500 for recording job applicants' phone interviews without proper consent. This case is important because it stresses the need for clear consent when recording conversations.
What happened
The agency recorded telephone interviews with job applicants without adequately informing them or obtaining consent.
Who was affected
Job applicants whose interviews were recorded without their knowledge were affected.
What the authority found
The Austrian data protection authority found that the agency violated GDPR by not securing proper consent for recording calls.
Why this matters
This case underscores the necessity for businesses to obtain explicit consent before recording conversations. Companies should review their recording practices to ensure compliance with data protection regulations.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
The controller was a digital marketing agency whose employees pre-screened potential applicants for its clients. As part of this process, applicants (data subjects) were contacted and interviewed by telephone. A former employee of the controller was examined as a witness by the Austrian DPA (DSB) and provided evidence concerning the recordings. The telephone interviews generally followed a particular pattern. The employees contacted data subjects in the name of the relevant client, stated that their application appeared interesting, presented the position, asked about their qualifications and professional experience and, where appropriate, arranged an in-person interview. The calls were recorded from beginning to end and stored for an indefinite period. In some cases, data subjects were not informed that the call was being recorded. In other cases, the employee asked during the call whether recording would be acceptable. In one such call, the data subject responded, “Uh, yeah.” Moreover, a superior employee had encouraged other employees through an intranet message to record and store interviews for training purposes, including without obtaining the data subject's consent. The controller argued that it had been unaware of the recording practice. It submitted that the employee who had instructed the others to make the recordings was neither a managing director nor an authorised signatory and had no authority to issue such instructions. According to the controller, the statement that interviews could be recorded “even without consent” resulted from personal overzealousness and legal recklessness and did not reflect the controller’s internal procedures. As legal bases for the processing, the controller stated that it relied on consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. It claimed that data subjects had been expressly asked for consent at the beginning of the application process and that the recordings served the legitimate
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 2025-1.049.138 in AT
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 2025-1.049.138 - Austria (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: