Is video surveillance of training areas in fitness studios possible from a data protection perspective? The Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA) addressed this question in its referring to the Video surveillance in gyms.
In this specific case, the issue was permanent video surveillance throughout the entire opening hours of all training areas, including the bar area, in a fitness studio. The stated purpose of the video surveillance was to prevent and, if necessary, investigate theft and damage to property, as well as to protect against sexual assault due to a lack of staff Video surveillance in gyms.
The data processing associated with video surveillance represents a significant infringement on the general personal rights of those training. According to the BayLDA and the Ansbach Administrative Court , there is no legal basis for this data processing , so that the video surveillance of training areas is ultimately incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation and has therefore been deemed inadmissible.
Implied consent
Consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) (a) GDPR was not granted by the trainees because the data protection requirements were not met. According to Art. 7 GDPR and Art. 4 No. 11 GDPR, consent must be given by a clearly affirmative action of the data subject. Furthermore, Recital 32 of the General Data Protection Regulation clearly states that mere silence, i.e., acknowledgment of the sign indicating video surveillance, uk business fax list does not constitute consent.
Fulfillment of the contract
Likewise , Article 6 (1) (b) GDPR does not serve as a legal basis for video surveillance. The basic idea is that it is part of the fitness studio’s contractual obligations to protect its users from theft and assault. While such protective obligations certainly exist, there are a few things to the court found that these do not go so far as to require continuous video surveillance to fulfill these obligations. The operator of a fitness studio is not obligat to protect its users from all conceivable harm.
Legitimate interests of the fitness studio
As a result, the BayLDA and the VG Ansbach also reject Art. 6 Para. 1 S. 1 lit. f) GDPR as the legal basis for video surveillance, according to which data processing is lawful if the processing is “necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the controller or of a third party, unless the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data prevail (…)” .
Video surveillance is indeed suitable for achieving the purpose (see above).
However, the legal basis fails due to the criterion of necessity. This is not met if the pursued goals can be achieved just as effectively with less intrusive means. There are numerous ways to achieve the objectives without requiring video surveillance of the training areas, marketing list for example, More staff could also be employed to increase the safety of those training. The gym operator’s argument that video surveillance is the more economically viable alternative to increasing staffing is not sufficient to justify the necessity. Furthermore, the BayLDA sees no need to monitor the entire training area.
s. The exercisers have no opportunity to train without surveillance and thus avoid it. Every exerciser who enters the training area remains within the detection range of the cameras. This creates a permanent, comprehensive surveillance pressure for the exerciser. The training area is a leisure area in which the exerciser stays for an extended period of time.
