All news
Regulation August 25, 2026 5 min

Who answers for the live stream of the under-14 match? Sweden answers the question nobody asks

IMY publishes guidance on streaming children's and youth sport: what is allowed, and who is the controller when the cameras belong to the club but the hall belongs to the municipality

In short

IMY guidance of 25 August 2026, aimed at sports clubs and federations but also relevant to municipalities. Two questions: which factors decide whether streaming is allowed, and who is the controller when the venue belongs to one body and the cameras to another.

Why this is a DPO topic and not a parents' topic

Streaming a children's match live brings together everything usually dealt with separately: images of minors, distribution to an undefined audience, a legal basis to choose, and a venue that often belongs to someone other than the broadcaster.

IMY recalls the general criterion for images: when you distribute them to a wide audience, for example by publishing them online, you must balance your interest in distributing them against the children's interest in not being exposed. That is not a formula to put at the bottom of a form: it is a judgement that has to be written down beforehand, and that someone must be able to read back.

The question nobody asks

The guidance expressly addresses the case of the municipality that owns the hall in which a club wants to install cameras. It is the most common situation and the least examined: the club films, the municipality hosts, and neither has put in writing who decides purposes and means.

While everything works the question does not come up. It comes up when a parent asks for a clip to be erased, or when a recording ends up where it should not: at that point the person is entitled to know whom to address, and «the club says the municipality, the municipality says the club» is not an answer.

What to take away if you do not work in Sweden

The guidance is Swedish and speaks to clubs and federations there, but the shape of the problem does not change from one legal system to another: images of minors, an audience you do not know, and two bodies sharing a venue without having settled the roles.

To ask a client who streams

Who decides the purposes and means of the broadcast, and where is that written. If there is more than one body, does the Article 26 joint controller arrangement exist and do people know whom to address? Was the balancing between the interest in broadcasting and the children's interest in not being exposed done beforehand, or is it being improvised now? And what happens to an erasure request about a stream already recorded and published.

Official source:IMY — IMY ger vägledning om streaming av barn- och ungdomsidrott (25 augusti 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