Enforcing jurisdiction
Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

DPA case 2026-0.690.562 – Violation Found (Austria, 2026)

Violation Found
Datenschutzbehörde16 September 2026Austria
final
Violation Found

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.

An editor at a media company shared posts about a legal case on social media, revealing the name of a person involved without redacting it. The court found that this violated rules about minimizing personal data. Although no fine was issued, the reprimand highlights the importance of protecting individuals' identities in reporting.

What happened

The editor published posts on social media that included the name of a person accused in a defamation case without redacting it.

Who was affected

The person whose name was revealed in the posts was the accused in a defamation lawsuit.

What the authority found

The authority ruled that the editor violated the principle of data minimization by disclosing personal information without proper justification.

Why this matters

This case emphasizes the need for journalists to carefully consider privacy when reporting on legal matters. Media professionals should ensure they redact sensitive information to protect individuals' identities.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 10 GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR
Art. 83(5)(a) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 85(GDPR)
Art. 10(GDPR)
Art. 83(5)(a) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR

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.

Processing notes: articles corrected.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

An editor-in-chief at a media company (controller) reported on so-called SLAPP lawsuits (strategic litigation against public participation lawsuits) initiated by an attorney. As part of this reporting, he published posts on his personal social media profiles on three different platforms about a legal action that the attorney was pursuing against the data subject on the grounds of defamation and libel. The lawsuit was dismissed because the data subject was found not guilty of defamation and libel. In these posts, the controller published the court decision and failed to redact the data subject’s name on several occasions within the document. In the document, the position of the data subject as the accused was apparent. The post was publicly accessible for several days and was reposted several times by other users of the platforms. The controller published the post on his own initiative and was not instructed to do so by the media company he is employed at. After the DPA has been notified about the incident, the controller deleted the posts. Retrospectively, the data subject made a statement that he consented to the disclosure of his name in the controller’s posts. The DPA found a violation of the data minimisation principle pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and issued a reprimand. It held that the data in question fell under Article 10 GDPR because it identified the data subject as an accused in a criminal law proceeding despite the fact that he was acquitted. Moreover, the DPA held that because the controller acted on his own initiative, he held the role of the controller. The media company did not assert any influence on the controller to publish the post. The DPA held that Article 85 GDPR in conjunction with national law on the processing of personal data for the purpose of journalistic reporting was applicable as legal basis because the post formed part of the controllers reporting on the “SLAPP” lawsuits of the attorney. However, since the national prov

Outcome

Violation Found

The DPA found a violation but did not impose a fine.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 2026-0.690.562 in AT

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

16 September 2026

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-10294

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 2026-0.690.562 - Austria (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: