ON
← Back to feed
Postfinance illegally collected customer data other banks also come under pressure
CH🏛️ PoliticsCenter13 hr. ago

Postfinance illegally collected customer data other banks also come under pressure

The Federal Administrative Court has ruled that Postfinance violated data protection laws by creating voiceprints of customers based on recorded phone calls without obtaining explicit consent. The court determined that merely informing customers about the recording and offering them the option to object was insufficient under Swiss law, which requires active permission for processing biometric data like voiceprints. Consequently, Postfinance is ordered to either seek retroactive consent from affected individuals or delete the collected voiceprint data by February 15, 2027, though the bank has announced it intends to delete the records. The ruling establishes a significant legal precedent regarding the handling of biometric identifiers in customer service interactions. This decision places pressure on other financial institutions in Switzerland to review their own voice recognition practices and ensure they comply with stricter consent requirements.

The Federal Administrative Court has ruled that Swiss bank Postfinance violated data protection laws by creating biometric voiceprints of customers without their explicit consent. The court determined that merely informing callers about audio recording does not constitute valid permission for such sensitive biometric processing. Consequently, the bank faces a deadline of February 15, 2027, to either obtain retroactive approval from affected clients or delete the stored voice data entirely. This landmark decision establishes that active, affirmative consent is required before companies can generate digital codes based on human voices, setting a new legal standard for privacy in customer service interactions. The practice at issue began in autumn 2018. When customers called the Postfinance hotline, they heard an automated announcement stating that the conversation would be recorded for security and identification purposes. The message instructed listeners who did not wish to participate to inform their customer advisor. However, the bank interpreted continued participation during the call as implicit agreement. Under this system, software analyzed hundreds of individual vocal characteristics, including pronunciation, speaking speed, and emphasis, to create a unique digital code known as a voiceprint. This technology allowed the bank to identify returning callers by their voice alone, even if they were hoarse or switched languages, although loud background noise could interfere with accuracy. The Federal Data Protection Commissioner challenged this approach, arguing that voiceprints are biometric identifiers similar to fingerprints or facial scans. Unlike passwords, these traits are intrinsically linked to a person and cannot be changed after a data breach. Furthermore, artificial intelligence can now mimic voices convincingly enough to potentially bypass biometric security systems. Postfinance defended its method, claiming it was secure, efficient, and popular. The bank argued that it saved approximately 720,000 Swiss francs annually compared to other identification methods. It maintained that providing notice and an option to opt out satisfied legal requirements, leading it to contest the regulator’s initial order. The Federal Administrative Court rejected the bank's defense. The judges emphasized that the human voice is a highly personal attribute that reveals information beyond just language, including emotional states, health conditions, and personality traits. Therefore, the right to personality protection carries significant weight. The court held that a passive consent model, where customers must actively object to prevent data collection, is legally insufficient. Only explicit, active consent allows a company to process such biometric data. While acknowledging the economic efficiency of voice recognition, the court prioritized fundamental privacy rights over operational convenience. Postfinance announced it will comply with the ruling by deleting all collected voiceprints by the February 2027 deadline. The bank stated it had already adjusted its procedures in February 2026. It now employs a new speech robot that asks customers for specific permission before identifying them via voice. The judgment remains subject to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. The ruling extends implications beyond Postfinance to other financial institutions in Switzerland. The Zurich Cantonal Bank, for instance, currently uses a similar procedure. Its website describes a process where a voiceprint is created after any call lasting at least sixty seconds. Customers wishing to have this profile deleted must subsequently contact a customer advisor. Given the administrative burden and legal risks highlighted by the Postfinance case, other banks using comparable automatic voice recognition systems may face increasing pressure to modify their practices. The decision signals a stricter regulatory environment for biometric data collection in customer-facing services across the country.

How this report was made. Objective News wrote this report from 2 source articles, using AI-assisted synthesis under our methodology. It is our own text, not a copy of any single outlet. Read our methodology.

Responsible editor: Matej BašaSpotted an error? Report it

2 reports

SRF News logoSRF NewsState / PublicCenterFactual 95Objective 9020 hr. ago
Federal Administrative Court Hotlines are not allowed to automatically store votes of callers

The Federal Administrative Court has ruled that hotlines cannot automatically record callers' voices without explicit consent. This decision was made in response to practices by Postfinance, a subsidiary of Swiss Post, which had been collecting voiceprints since 2018 to recognize customers during future calls. While the court acknowledged the efficiency of such systems, it emphasized that recording a person's voice constitutes a strong personal protection issue. The court stated that voice recordings contain more than just speech, they can reveal emotions, health status, and personality traits. Therefore, companies must obtain explicit consent before creating a voiceprint. Postfinance now needs to either get consent from affected individuals or delete existing voice profiles. The ruling highlights the importance of personal rights and data privacy, especially as technology advances.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a legal ruling regarding data privacy and personal rights, focusing on the interpretation of laws rather than expressing overt political opinion. It provides balanced information about the court’s reasoning, the concerns raised by the Data Protection Commissioner, and the impact

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reflects the core legal ruling by the Federal Administrative Court regarding voiceprint storage at Postfinance. It correctly identifies the timeline (practice started in 2018) and the specific legal issue (lack of active consent vs. passive opt-out). The description of the cou

Why objectivity (90): The tone is professional and journalistic. While it uses phrases like 'sehr zum Missfallen' (to the great displeasure) of the Data Protection Officer, this is attributed to the official rather than being the author's opinion. The framing presents the conflict between business efficiency and privacy

watson logowatsonIndependentCenterFactual 92Objective 8513 hr. ago
Postfinance illegally collected customer data other banks also come under pressure

The Federal Administrative Court has ruled that Postfinance violated data protection laws by creating voiceprints of customers based on recorded phone calls without obtaining explicit consent. The court determined that merely informing customers about the recording and offering them the option to object was insufficient under Swiss law, which requires active permission for processing biometric data like voiceprints. Consequently, Postfinance is ordered to either seek retroactive consent from affected individuals or delete the collected voiceprint data by February 15, 2027, though the bank has announced it intends to delete the records. The ruling establishes a significant legal precedent regarding the handling of biometric identifiers in customer service interactions. This decision places pressure on other financial institutions in Switzerland to review their own voice recognition practices and ensure they comply with stricter consent requirements.

Bias read (Center): The article reports on a specific legal ruling concerning data privacy regulations. While the subject involves corporate compliance and legal interpretation, the tone is factual and explanatory, focusing on the technical aspects of voiceprints and the specific requirements of the court order. There,

Why factuality (92): The article correctly states the outcome of the court decision and the mechanism of voiceprint identification. However, the headline uses the word 'illegal' (illegale), which is a strong characterization. While the court ruled the practice violated data protection laws, labeling past actions definit

Why objectivity (85): The tone is slightly more sensationalized than Article 0 due to the headline ('sammelte illegal', 'unter Druck'). The inclusion of educational sections ('What is a voiceprint?') adds value but also shifts the focus from pure reporting to explainer content. The framing emphasizes the negative impact

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories