Categories: Insights, Publications · News, Publications

Tag: Dismissal, Licenziamento, protezione dei dati personali


30 Oct 2025

Use of personal devices for business purposes. What are the employer’s risks?

The Spanish Data Protection Authority (i.e. “AEPD”) initiated sanction proceedings against a Spanish company belonging to an international group, following a complaint filed by a former employee.

The employee alleged that the company had added her personal mobile phone number to a corporate WhatsApp group, without her consent, for work-related purposes while waiting to receive a company phone – which she never actually received. Before taking a holiday, the employee had expressly notified the company by email that she would stop using her private number for work matters and had left the corporate WhatsApp group. However, only a few days later, her number was added again to a company group chat. The company argued that the inclusion was temporary, pending delivery of the business phone, and that WhatsApp groups were used solely for internal work communications among employees.

The AEPD, however, found that the use of the employee’s personal number without consent violated Article 6, paragraph 1, of the GDPR, which requires a lawful basis for any processing of personal data.

Legal basis and decision of the Authority

The Spanish Authority recalled that a personal mobile phone number is a personal data item, and that its use to include an employee in a corporate messaging group constitutes data processing which must rely on one of the legal bases set out in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the GDPR.

  • The GDPR requires that personal data be processed lawfully – Article 5 (1)(a).
  • For processing to be lawful, one of the following conditions must be met – Article 6 (1):
  • the data subject has given consent to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes;
  • the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party, or in order to take steps at the data subject’s request prior to entering into a contract;
  • the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
  • [omitted].

In the case under review, there was no consent from the data subject, nor any contractual necessity or other legitimate ground for processing. Moreover, the Spanish Authority stated that the existence of an internal company policy on the use of mobile devices does not exempt the employer from the obligation to establish a proper legal basis for processing.

The company was therefore fined €70,000, reduced to €42,000 after it acknowledged the violation and opted to pay the reduced amount. The AEPD also ordered the company to adopt corrective measures to ensure future compliance with the GDPR.

Bring Your Own Device

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies are corporate rules governing the use of personal devices – such as smartphones, laptops, or tablets – for work-related purposes.

In practice, a BYOD policy sets out how employees may use their personal devices to access corporate data, emails, or applications, and defines the relevant security measures.

It is always preferable for companies to provide corporate devices and maintain a clear separation between personal and business tools. However, if the employer decides to allow employees to use personal devices for business purposes, a documented internal policy should be adopted, regulating:

  • cybersecurity requirements,
  • limits on use,
  • measures to protect employee privacy,
  • procedures for deletion of corporate data,
  • information and consent obligations (where applicable).

Other related insights:

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…