The Danish Data Protection Agency has issued serious criticism of a company for hidden audio recordings of employee conversations

The Danish Data Protection Agency's decision of September 26, 2025.

A dental practice repeatedly recorded conversations with an employee without their knowledge. Throughout their employment, the employee had several controversies with the company. The recorded conversations primarily concerned employee behavior towards patients and colleagues, work quality, and patient complaints. 

The employee only became aware of the audio recordings when they were presented as evidence in a lawsuit between the employee and the company after he had resigned from his position. Based on this, the employee complained to the Danish Data Protection Agency.

In this regard, the company stated that the audio recordings were to be used to document conversations with the employee, emphasizing their crucial importance for an ongoing lawsuit concerning the employment relationship. 

Data Protection Authority: Hidden recordings were not permitted 

The Danish Data Protection Agency noted that the company had not provided a legal basis for recording the conversations pursuant to Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation. 

Furthermore, the Danish Data Protection Agency stated that ensuring an accurate reproduction of a conversation to protect against subsequent claims could constitute a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation. In this case, however, there were no indications that the employee would bring a claim against the company when the recordings began. The Danish Data Protection Agency emphasized that the recordings began more than 16 months before the employee resigned and over three years before the lawsuit was filed. Since there was no necessary connection between the recordings and the subsequent lawsuit, the Danish Data Protection Agency did not find that the company's interest in recording the conversations exceeded the employee's interests or rights.

The Danish Data Protection Agency concluded that an employer's covert recording of conversations is generally such an unexpected action for an employee that Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation requires the employee to be informed before the audio recordings are made, unless the specific circumstances or customs dictate otherwise. Since the employee had not been informed about the recordings, the Danish Data Protection Agency ruled that the company had violated the principle of transparency.

Littler notes

The Danish Data Protection Agency's decision shows that employers must be careful when recording conversations with employees. While it may be legal to record conversations with employees to protect against possible subsequent claims, it is illegal to do so without concrete indication that such claims will be made. 

Additionally, employers must inform employees that the conversation is being recorded before the recording begins, unless specific circumstances or customs indicate otherwise.