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 May 21, 2026 4 min

Data breach: Italy's DPA fines The European House - Ambrosetti EUR 85,000 over plaintext passwords and late notification

The fine is small, but the findings hit hard: passwords stored in plaintext and data subjects warned two months late. A textbook case on Articles 32 and 34 GDPR

TL;DR for the DPO

Italy's DPA fined The European House - Ambrosetti EUR 85,000 over a data breach affecting 61,670 people (client-company employees and internal staff). Two key findings: 1) part of the passwords was stored in plaintext and another part with cryptographic techniques below the most advanced standards (Art. 32); 2) although the breach was notified to the regulator within 72 hours, the company informed the data subjects only after about two months, and only after a corrective measure, despite the high risk (Art. 34).

The three points that matter

  • Notifying the regulator is NOT enough: Art. 33 (72 hours to the authority) and Art. 34 (communication to data subjects when risk is high) are two distinct duties. Here the first was met, the second was not.
  • Plaintext passwords = inadequate measures: storing credentials in plaintext or with weak cryptography is a direct breach of Art. 32. Robust password hashing is not optional.
  • Timeliness and transparency: warning data subjects two months late deprived them of the chance to protect themselves (e.g. changing compromised passwords). The delay was treated as an aggravating factor.

What to do now

For every client: 1) check HOW passwords are stored (they must be hashed with robust algorithms, never plaintext); 2) prepare an incident-response procedure in advance that clearly separates notification to the authority (72h, Art. 33) from communication to data subjects (Art. 34), and defines WHO decides and BY WHEN; 3) keep data-subject communication templates ready, so that in a high-risk case you act in hours, not months. The Data Breach module with its 72h timer is built for exactly this.

Why it matters for your clients

The fine is modest, but the decision will be widely cited because it targets very common mistakes: poorly managed passwords and a slow, reactive communication to data subjects instead of a planned one. For a DPO it's a chance to run two concrete checks on clients - how credentials are protected and how ready the breach procedure is - before an authority asks the question.

Official source:Italian DPA - Newsletter no. 547 of 21 May 2026 (The European House - Ambrosetti fine)

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
€16,7Mfor telemarketing and contracts activated without consent

Italian DPA fines Wind Tre €16.7 million: telemarketing despite objections and contracts activated without customers' knowledge

People who had objected kept receiving calls, and some contracts were activated without the person knowing. The Garante fines Wind Tre €16.7 million and restates a principle for every company with an agency network: responsibility is not outsourced along with sales.

Oct 12, 2026New 5 min
Enforcement
€350kto controller and processor over outdated systems

Greece: €350,000 for a data breach — both the Ministry and the processor running outdated systems fined, and there was no Article 28 contract

An attack on the systems of the agency running a Ministry's programmes exposed identification, financial and health data of a very large number of people. The Hellenic DPA fines the controller €200,000 and the processor €150,000: notifying well is not enough if the supplier works on outdated systems and the relationship is not governed by a contract.

Oct 08, 2026New 5 min
Enforcement
€4kfor a camera pointed at a home

Italian DPA fines the municipality of Arvier €4,000: a camera filmed a resident's windows and balconies, and the masking came too late

A small municipality in the Aosta Valley uses cameras for traffic, parking, number plates, the environment and civil protection. A resident finds that one covers her home. The Garante imposes a fine and makes a point that applies to every system: masking private areas is designed before the camera is switched on, not after the complaint.

Oct 08, 2026New 5 min