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
Enforcement July 9, 2026 4 min

Enel Energia fined EUR 563,000: the 'administrative' call that turns into a sales pitch

Decision 170/2026: the legal basis of a service call does not cover commercial offers. The 90-second SMS opt-out and weak partner controls also rejected

TL;DR for the DPO

Decision no. 170/2026: EUR 563,052 to Enel Energia. Breaches of Arts. 5, 6, 7, 24 and 28 GDPR and Art. 130 of the Italian Privacy Code: (1) a service call used to sell = change of purpose without a legal basis; (2) an SMS opt-out with 90 seconds to refuse is not consent; (3) partner controls activated only after the proceeding started, and an agency already sanctioned for marketing re-contracted two months later. Beyond the fine, an order to fix the entire chain.

The three points that matter

  • Purpose does not stretch by itself: if you call to complete paperwork (contract performance), that legal basis does NOT cover a commercial offer in the same call. Marketing needs its own, verifiable, prior consent.
  • Opt-out is not consent: an SMS with a link to click within 90 seconds NOT to be re-contacted reverses the GDPR logic. The DPA points the other way: double opt-in, with a positive action by the person.
  • The chain is the controller's responsibility (Arts. 24 and 28): contractual penalties on paper are worthless if controls start only when the authority knocks. Contracting a partner just sanctioned for marketing is an own goal in an investigation.

What to do now, in practice

For every client making phone contacts: 1) separate service calls from commercial ones with scripts and training - operators must not 'seize the opportunity'; 2) check how marketing consent is collected: if the mechanism is an opt-out, rebuild it; 3) audit partners/call centres: upstream consents, opt-out register checks, and DOCUMENTED controls (not just clauses). The Art. 30 record must distinguish the two purposes with their legal bases.

Why it matters for your clients

You do not need to be Enel: any SME whose customer desk 'while we are at it' pitches an offer is doing exactly the same thing. This decision is the concrete example to bring to front-office training: the difference between a lawful call and a breach is one sentence spoken on the phone.

Official source:Italian Data Protection Authority - decision no. 170 of 12 March 2026 (Enel Energia S.p.A.)

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

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

Start free

Related articles

Enforcement
26complaints, and no fine

You declare contract, then you reject the objections: Norway shows how the two mistakes travel together

SATS asked members for a photo kept in the membership system and used at the desk to check the identity of people coming in. Datatilsynet found the notice stated the wrong legal basis, failed to explain the right to object, and that objections were rejected without demonstrating compelling legitimate grounds. The deadline to fix it is 11 September 2026.

Aug 26, 2026New 6 min
Enforcement
825 mln €the second-largest fine ever

Eight hundred and twenty-five million for an algorithm that deactivated accounts with nobody looking

It is the second-largest fine ever imposed under the GDPR, behind only Meta's 1.2 billion. It is not about a data transfer or a security breach: it is about Article 22, the rule on automated decisions that almost nobody documents because it looks like a big-platform problem. It is in fact about anyone who lets software decide something that weighs on a person's life.

Aug 24, 2026New 5 min
Enforcement
64 mln złagainst 14 the year before

Poland quadrupled its fines in a year, and the three highest ever all date from 2025

For years Poland was treated as a low-enforcement market. That assumption no longer holds: in twelve months the total went from fourteen to over sixty-four million zloty, and the three largest fines in the country's history all carry the same year. If you look after a client with a branch, a supplier or a service centre in Poland, the risk calculation has changed.

Aug 24, 2026New 4 min