The AEPD fines the publication on YouTube of a court recording with personal data
Online reputation lawyers
Spanish Data Protection Agency
Organ
Person responsible for the channel
Counterpart
Data Protection and Privacy
Material
Fine of €10,000 and anonymisation
Result
Case summary
The case began following the publication on YouTube of a recording corresponding to a court hearing.
The content clearly identified the claimant, as it showed their first and last name and their voice and image were recognisable. Furthermore, a court document was also published on the channel which included information about the plaintiffs and the lawyer involved in the proceedings.
The affected party considered that the public disclosure of this information violated their right to data protection personal and filed a claim with the Spanish Agency Data Protection.
What were the parties discussing?
The claimant argued that the recording of the judicial video conference had been published without their consent and that it contained sufficient information to identify them.
He also reported that the publication of documentation associated with the procedure exposed personal data of the parties involved and their legal representative.
For his part, the head of the channel defended that the publication's aim was to give visibility to the procedural activity and that there was no infringement because part of the information corresponded to a lawyer during the exercise of their professional activity.
What was the AEPD’s decision?
The Spanish Data Protection Agency concluded that the publication of the video infringed data protection regulations.
The AEPD considered that the processing carried out on YouTube was incompatible with the original purpose for which the data had been obtained, which was the development and conduct of legal proceedings.
As a result, he imposed upon the person in charge a Economic sanction of €10,000 and ordered him to take the necessary measures to ensure the anonymisation of the personal data present in the video and in the published documentation.
Data obtained during legal proceedings cannot be freely reused for public dissemination on the internet.
Supreme Court
Purpose limitation
The purpose limitation principle states that personal data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes.
Once collected, they cannot subsequently be used for a different purpose that is incompatible with the original.
In this case, the data had been obtained in the context of judicial proceedings. Its subsequent publication on YouTube to raise awareness of the procedure constituted a new processing that did not respect the original purpose.
Why is this statement relevant?
This case confirms that transparency or an interest in disseminating judicial proceedings do not permit the free publication of recordings containing personal data.
Before sharing this type of content, effective measures must be applied anonymisation to prevent the identification of the affected persons.
The resolution also recalls that voice, image, name and surnames are personal data and that their publication on the internet can generate particularly harmful exposure due to its reach and permanence.
Honoralia's work
Honoralia's legal team analysed the audiovisual content, identified the personal data exposed, and prepared the claim before the AEPD.
The intervention included the collection of evidence, the study of the purpose of the treatment, the defence of the claimant's rights, and the monitoring of proceedings until a favourable resolution was obtained.
The action allowed us to prove the improper use of information from judicial proceedings and to secure both a financial penalty and the adoption of measures. anonymisation.
Case file
Customer
Area
Data protection and online reputation
Service
Complaint to the AEPD
Responsible
Publisher responsible
Applicable legislation
GDPR – Purpose limitation principle
Impact
Identity and privacy protection online
Case process
1
Video detection
The affected person discovers that a recording of a court hearing has been published on YouTube.
2
Data verification
It is verified that the content allows identification by name, surnames, voice and image.
3
Collection of evidence
Honoralia documents the video, the channel and the court writings published along with the recording.
4
Complaint to the AEPD
A claim is being made concerning the illegitimate reuse of data obtained during legal proceedings.
5
Decision and penalty
The AEPD imposes a fine of €10,000 and requires the adoption of measures to anonymise the information.
Legal and practical impact
Protect judicial data
Information obtained during legal proceedings may not be publicly disclosed without a valid legal basis.
Limit data reuse
The data must not be used for purposes other than and incompatible with those for which it was collected.
Force anonymisation
Recordings and documents must obscure elements that allow the affected persons to be identified.
Hold the publisher responsible
The responsible party for a channel or platform can be sanctioned for disclosing personal data without complying with the GDPR.