BOUTIQUE.AERO – Violation Found (France, 2019)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The French data protection authority found that BOUTIQUE.AERO used surveillance cameras to monitor employees without proper data protection measures. They didn't inform employees about the surveillance or secure the data properly. This case highlights the importance of transparency and data security for businesses using surveillance technology.
What happened
BOUTIQUE.AERO used surveillance cameras to monitor employees without adequate data protection measures.
Who was affected
Employees who were monitored by the company's surveillance cameras without being informed.
What the authority found
The CNIL found that BOUTIQUE.AERO violated GDPR by not informing employees about the surveillance and failing to secure the data.
Why this matters
This decision emphasizes that businesses must inform employees about surveillance and ensure data security. It serves as a reminder to review and update data protection practices, especially when using surveillance technology.
GDPR Articles Cited
In July 2018, the southern-west DIRECCTE (regional office for undertakings, competition and consumers) warned the CNIL that cameras of the company BOUTIQUE.AERO – the data controller - were constantly scanning the workstations of certain employees. Following this warning, the CNIL carried out some investigations. The CNIL found that the surveillance cameras were recording personal data which were not adequate, relevant nor limited to what it was necessary. Thus, the data controller violated Article 5(1)(c) GPDR. The French DPA found as well that no information had been given to the data subjects regarding the collection of their personal data and the storage limitation periods. Thus, the CNIL determined that the data controller had violated Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the CNIL stated that the IT service provider for cameras maintenance could be qualified as a data processor. However, the contract between the data processor and the data controller did not include any measure providing for sufficient guarantees regarding the security of the processing. Also, the personal data recorded by the cameras and consulted through the data controller ‘s management software were not encrypted and were easily accessible. Therefore, the data controller violated both Articles 28 and 32 GDPR. Finally, the CNIL decided that the data controller did not comply with the obligation to create a record of processing activities, as required by Article 30(1) GDPR. As a consequence, the CNIL addressed a formal notice to the data controller and let a two-months period to comply with the GDPR. The controller had two months to comply with Articles 5(1)(c), 13, 28, 30(1) and 32 GDPR. In its latest order, the CNIL hold that keeping a register of processing activities, informing employees about the video-surveillance system and concluding a contract with your subcontractors was enough to comply with the aforementioned GDPR Articles. As a consequence, the CNIL issued a termination decision.
Outcome
Violation Found
The DPA found a violation but did not impose a fine.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for BOUTIQUE.AERO in FR
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Decision Date
5 November 2019
Authority
Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-1576About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. BOUTIQUE.AERO - France (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: