A student represented by noyb – Complaint Upheld (Austria, 2025)

Complaint Upheld
Datenschutzbehörde8 October 2025Austria
final
Complaint Upheld

A student used Microsoft 365 Education provided by her school. Her father, as her legal representative, asked for full information and access to all personal data used by the software, but received incomplete answers. Still, from these answers it was clear that tracking cookies were used without consent, and logs showed interaction with third parties like LinkedIn, OpenAI, and Xandr. Essentially, the data subject complained that the school, Microsoft, and Ministry did not provide complete access to the requested data. In addition to this, it was argued that the student never received full access to information under Article 13 GDPR, especially regarding cookies and data transfers. A major point also concerned Microsoft explanations as they were far too vague, for example mentioning “business model analytics” and “internal reporting” without providing explanations. Moreover, the alleged violations were not fixed promptly, even after repeated requests. On the other hand, the school and the Ministry argued that they did provide access, and could not give more detailed information because they were also not given access by Microsoft. They also stated they had little to no control over technical details, which were in the hands of Microsoft. The Education Authority claimed not to be involved at all in providing Microsoft 365 to schools. Microsoft affirmed that certain processing for legitimate business activities is allowed and not harmful, for example relating to security and analytics. On top of that, according to Microsoft, the cookie lists and general documentation provided to the data subjects should have been sufficient to comply with information obligations. They added to this that the school and Ministry were the entities having a say on overall use of the software. The DPA dismissed the complaint directed to the Education Authority, as it was not found responsible for Microsoft Education 365’s operations. The DPA held that the school and the Ministry, acti

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 13 GDPR
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR

Entities Involved

A student represented by noyb
Microsoft Corporation
Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research
A Federal Gymnasium
Full Legal Summary

A student used Microsoft 365 Education provided by her school. Her father, as her legal representative, asked for full information and access to all personal data used by the software, but received incomplete answers. Still, from these answers it was clear that tracking cookies were used without consent, and logs showed interaction with third parties like LinkedIn, OpenAI, and Xandr. Essentially, the data subject complained that the school, Microsoft, and Ministry did not provide complete access to the requested data. In addition to this, it was argued that the student never received full access to information under Article 13 GDPR, especially regarding cookies and data transfers. A major point also concerned Microsoft explanations as they were far too vague, for example mentioning “business model analytics” and “internal reporting” without providing explanations. Moreover, the alleged violations were not fixed promptly, even after repeated requests. On the other hand, the school and the Ministry argued that they did provide access, and could not give more detailed information because they were also not given access by Microsoft. They also stated they had little to no control over technical details, which were in the hands of Microsoft. The Education Authority claimed not to be involved at all in providing Microsoft 365 to schools. Microsoft affirmed that certain processing for legitimate business activities is allowed and not harmful, for example relating to security and analytics. On top of that, according to Microsoft, the cookie lists and general documentation provided to the data subjects should have been sufficient to comply with information obligations. They added to this that the school and Ministry were the entities having a say on overall use of the software. The DPA dismissed the complaint directed to the Education Authority, as it was not found responsible for Microsoft Education 365’s operations. The DPA held that the school and the Ministry, acti

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Violations (3)

Cookies Placed Before Consent
critical

Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.

Art. 6(1) GDPR

Third-Party Cookies Without Consent
critical

Third-party tracking cookies or scripts are loaded without obtaining prior user consent.

Art. 13, 14 GDPR

Unclear Cookie Information
high

The cookie banner or cookie policy provides vague, incomplete, or unclear information about what cookies are used and why.

Art. 12, 13 GDPR

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for A student represented by noyb in AT

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

Details

Decision Date

8 October 2025

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-9629

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. A student represented by noyb - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: