Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 419/2026

Summary

Italy's data protection authority, the Garante, has investigated the Agency for Digital Italy (AgID) for privacy violations. AgID automatically included professional email addresses from an old index into a new index (INAD), making them digital domiciles for all communications. This led to personal emails being accessed by colleagues, infringing on data subjects' privacy. The Garante found that AgID failed to adequately inform data subjects about this new processing purpose, hindering their ability to opt-out in a timely manner.

Full text

Help Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 419/2026: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 19:50, 22 June 2026 view sourceCarloc (talk | contribs)703 edits Tag: submission [1.0] Revision as of 19:55, 22 June 2026 view source Carloc (talk | contribs)703 edits Tag: Visual editNewer edit → Line 76: Line 76: === Facts ====== Facts === The context of the case ==== The context of the case ==== The data controller for the case is a government body called the Agency for Digital Italy (AgID). AgID is tasked with driving the adoption of digital technologies in both government and the private sector. Additionally, AgID is Italy’s soon-to-be notification authority for the AI Act.The data controller for the case is a government body called the Agency for Digital Italy (AgID). AgID is tasked with driving the adoption of digital technologies in both government and the private sector. Additionally, AgID is Italy’s soon-to-be notification authority for the AI Act. Line 84: Line 84: Shortly after setting up the INAD index, AgID automatically included the addresses of professionals from the old INI-PEC index. As a result, the exported emails became the digital domicile for communications not related to the professional lives of the data subjects. Data subjects were given the option to opt-out of the inclusion in the INAD index.Shortly after setting up the INAD index, AgID automatically included the addresses of professionals from the old INI-PEC index. As a result, the exported emails became the digital domicile for communications not related to the professional lives of the data subjects. Data subjects were given the option to opt-out of the inclusion in the INAD index. Some data subjects complained (1) that this processing severely infringed on their privacy. As the DPA’s decision explains, it is not uncommon for professionals to give co-workers access to their professional email addresses, on the assumption that it will only be used for strictly professional communications. In some cases, co-workers were able to view strictly personal emails after the email address was listed as a digital domicile for all communications. The data subjects also claimed that the controller had not informed them about the processing, which prevented them from opting out in a timely fashion.Some data subjects complained<ref>It is not clear whether the DPA started the investigation ''ex officio'' or due to the complaints.</ref> that this processing severely infringed on their privacy. As the DPA’s decision explains, it is not uncommon for professionals to give co-workers access to their professional email addresses, on the assumption that it will only be used for strictly professional communications. In some cases, co-workers were able to view strictly personal emails after the email address was listed as a digital domicile for all communications. The data subjects also claimed that the controller had not informed them about the processing, which prevented them from opting out in a timely fashion. The investigation==== The investigation ==== On the duty of information ===== On the duty of information ===== First of all, the DPA clarified that by including email addresses in the INAD index, the controller further processed personal data for a new purpose, incompatible with the original purpose of the processing (i.e.: the inclusion of email addresses in the older index).First of all, the DPA clarified that by including email addresses in the INAD index, the controller further processed personal data for a new purpose, incompatible with the original purpose of the processing (i.e.: the inclusion of email addresses in the older index). With regards to the duty of information, the controller pointed out that it contacted professional orders to inform them about the creation of the INAD index. In the context of these communications, the controller asked professional orders to inform the data subjects about this processing of personal data and about their right to opt out. The controller stated that it did not directly contact the data subjects via their email addresses, as it feared that its emails would have been mistaken as phishing or scams(1).With regards to the duty of information, the controller pointed out that it contacted professional orders to inform them about the creation of the INAD index. In the context of these communications, the controller asked professional orders to inform the data subjects about this processing of personal data and about their right to opt out. The controller stated that it did not directly contact the data subjects via their email addresses, as it feared that its emails would have been mistaken as phishing or scams<ref>The DPA seems to have accepted this argument, as the decision contains no rebuttal; also see the "Comments" section on the lack of an injunction to inform data subjects).</ref>. The controller later launched a more effective information campaign with the help of other government bodies; however, this campaign only took place two years after the processing of personal data.The controller later launched a more effective information campaign with the help of other government bodies; however, this campaign only took place two years after the processing of personal data. On the controller’s identity===== On the controller’s identity ===== The DPA’s investigation also focused on a second issue, relative to the authentication procedure for digital domiciles: for a long time, a company (InfoCamere S.c.p.a.) was erroneously listed as a service provider for the INAD index.The DPA’s investigation also focused on a second issue, relative to the authentication procedure for digital domiciles: for a long time, a company (InfoCamere S.c.p.a.) was erroneously listed as a service provider for the INAD index. Line 108: Line 106: == Comment ==== Comment == On the DPA’s Opinion ==== The DPA’s Opinion on the processing ==== Before the creation of INAD, the DPA had specifically provided the controller with an opinion on the relative processing of personal data. In particular, the DPA’s guidance noted that the controller had not planned sufficient measures to inform the data subjects, which could practically undermine their option to opt out of the processing. In the decision, the controller noted that this guidance was entirely ignored.Before the creation of INAD, the DPA had specifically provided the controller with an opinion on the relative processing of personal data. In particular, the DPA’s guidance noted that the controller had not planned sufficient measures to inform the data subjects, which could practically undermine their option to opt out of the processing. In the decision, the controller noted that this guidance was entirely ignored. On the controller’s arguments on individual e-mails==== No injunction in the decision ==== Notably, the decision does not contain an injunction to properly inform the data subjects. This implies that in the DPA’s eyes, the controller had remedied the violation with its broader 2025 information campaign.Notably, the decision does not contain an injunction to properly inform the data subjects. This implies that in the DPA’s eyes, the controller had remedied the violation with its broader 2025 information campaign. Revision as of 19:55, 22 June 2026 Garante per la protezione dei dati personali - 419/2026 Authority: Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) Jurisdiction: Italy Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR Article 5(2) GDPR Article 12 GDPR Article 14 GDPR Article 25 GDPR Type: Investigation Outcome: Violation Found Started: Decided: 28.05.2026 Published: Fine: 55,000 EUR Parties: AgID National Case Number/Name: 419/2026 European Case Law Identifier: n/a Appeal: Unknown Original Language(s): Italian Original Source: GPDP (in IT) Initial Contributor: carloc The DPA fined the government agency for d

Entities