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 June 10, 2026 6 min

Rome Court annuls the Garante's EUR 15M fine against OpenAI: the one-stop-shop decides

Judgment 4153/2026 of 18 March 2026: the issue is not the merits but jurisdiction. For cross-border processing the lead authority applies

TL;DR for the DPO

18 March 2026: the Rome Court (judgment 4153/2026) annuls the Garante's 2024 decision fining OpenAI EUR 15M. The Court treats JURISDICTION as decisive: cross-border processing like ChatGPT's falls under the one-stop-shop, with the lead authority (in the EU, the Irish DPC). The substantive claims are not decided.

The facts

In 2024 the Garante alleged several violations (legal basis for training, notice, age verification, breach notification) and fined OpenAI EUR 15M plus a mandatory awareness campaign. OpenAI appealed; after a 2025 stay, the March 2026 judgment annulled the decision on jurisdiction grounds.

15MEUR
Fine annulled

Not a clean bill of health for ChatGPT

The ruling does not certify ChatGPT's GDPR compliance: it only decides who had power to sanction. Obligations for companies using ChatGPT are unchanged.

Official source:Rome Court, judgment 4153/2026

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