Your cookie preferences

EDPB guidance · Art. 7 GDPR

We use technical cookies essential for the platform to work (login, security, sessions). We would also like to use analytics cookies to understand how to improve it.

You can accept all, reject all, or choose which categories to switch on.Your consent is valid for 6 months and you can withdraw it at any time from the footer.

You will find everything in our privacy notice.

All news
Regulation August 24, 2026 6 min

In schools, advertising trackers are prohibited — and consent has nothing to do with it

The CNIL publishes the rules for collaborative tools in primary and secondary education: the commercial neutrality of the public education service rules them out in principle, and a DPIA is almost always mandatory

In short

Advertising trackers prohibited in principle, on grounds of the commercial neutrality of the public service. Legal basis: public interest task, not consent. A DPIA is mandatory where two EDPB criteria are met, and with minors the first one is met immediately. For public collèges and lycées, décret no. 2025-1165 of 5 December 2025 applies on top.

Commercial neutrality is not a recommendation

Here the CNIL does not hedge. The controller must make sure the tool does not use advertising trackers, which are «in principle prohibited» because of the neutrality of the public education service, which includes commercial neutrality. If the tool does use tracking devices for advertising exploitation or profiling, the controller must disable those features.

This rule does not come from the GDPR and cannot be solved with a consent box: it comes from public service law. A supplier who answers «the user can refuse» has not answered the question.

Why consent does not hold

Where using collaborative tools for teaching involves processing personal data, the controller must first determine the legal basis for each operation. If the processing serves the school's public service tasks — whether the school is public or private, and in particular the public digital education service under article L.131-2 of the education code — the basis is the performance of a task carried out in the public interest.

Consent, the CNIL writes, can hardly be relied on: to be valid it must be freely given, that is neither coerced nor influenced by the controller's position of authority. A pupil, their legal guardian or a teacher must be able to refuse without suffering negative consequences, and in a school setting that condition is not met.

A DPIA, nearly always

Three of the EDPB criteria are relevant here: processing concerning vulnerable persons, large-scale processing, and processing of sensitive data. Minors fall into the first category — and so does administrative and teaching staff when in a relationship of subordination.

Where at least two criteria are met, the DPIA must be carried out before the processing starts. The CNIL adds that in most cases it is likely to be necessary, and that where there is doubt it is better to do it. The controller can ask its DPO for assistance, and can call on the tool's supplier, who as a processor must help under article 28(3)(f).

The privacy notice has to be written for whoever must read it

The notice must be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible (articles 12, 13 and 14). For minors the CNIL asks that it be adapted to their age: plain language following ISO 24495-1:2023 and ISO 24495-2:2025, or the «easy to read and understand» method for people with reading difficulties or disabilities.

  • Before the processing begins, for example at first login to the tool.
  • Also by email to everyone concerned.
  • And again at the start of each school year: in primary schools, at the parents' meeting.

The decree that narrows the choice

For public collèges and lycées the GDPR is not the whole story. Décret no. 2025-1165 of 5 December 2025, on the reference framework for digital technology in education, requires the use of digital tools and services meeting technical requirements on security, interoperability and responsible digital practice set by the minister.

What to ask the supplier before signing

If the tool uses advertising trackers, how they are disabled and who verifies it. The article 28 guarantees: data protection policy, terms of use, information security policy, any ISO 27000 certification or code of conduct. Assistance with the DPIA. End-of-contract clauses on reversibility and deletion. On transfers, the CNIL cites ANSSI's SecNumCloud qualification as an example guaranteeing that the provider is subject to European law alone.

Official source:CNIL — Enseignement du premier et du second degrés : les règles et bonnes pratiques pour utiliser les outils collaboratifs en ligne (24 août 2026)

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.

Start free

Related articles

Regulation
nullathe decision on a worker taken by the algorithm alone, from 23 October

A dismissal decided by the algorithm is void: from 23 October in Italy

Published in Official Gazette no. 234 of 8 October 2026 and in force since 23 October, decree no. 179/2026 provides that final decisions on the employment relationship cannot be based solely on automated processing, that the worker may request an understandable explanation, and that decisions taken in breach are void. In parallel, AI systems affecting work organisation enter the risk assessment under Article 28 of decree 81/2008. For a DPO this is the rare case where the consequence is not economic but civil, and it changes how the check is framed.

Oct 08, 2026New 8 min
Regulation
3signals that make notification due

Poland's UODO: not every breach must be notified. Public-register data on one side, PESEL, health and financial data on the other

If an invoicing system leaks only a sole trader's name, business name, tax number and registered address, already public in the business register, risk is normally unlikely. If it also leaks the national ID number, purchase details revealing health, or financial data, notification is due. Either way, the decision goes into the internal register.

Oct 05, 2026New 5 min
Regulation
120days to charge you, not to fine you

The 120 days are not the deadline to fine you: they are the deadline to charge you

Anyone who built an appeal on the authority's delay should re-read the calendar. The Court clarifies three things: the complaint procedure and the sanctioning procedure are autonomous, so overrunning the nine-to-twelve months on the complaint does not extinguish the power to fine; the 120 days are for notifying the charge, not for imposing the fine; and they run from the «definitive finding», which is not the first notice but the moment the authority can assess every element — including the hearing of your side. After the charge, only the five-year limitation period remains.

Sep 20, 2026 7 min