234 incidents on record · 2026HeadlightsIncident reports by Ellie Harris · Melbourne
5 new this weekLibrary last updated 14 October 2026
← The incident library
HD-INC-212
Logistics · France · 2025 · Warehouse scanners automatically generated detailed indicators about each worker, and the employer kept all of them for 31 days across several purposes without being able to show that this was necessary

France's Top Administrative Court Cut Amazon's Warehouse Data Fine to 15 Million Euros

By Ellie Harris · Filed CNIL inspections of the company's offices and two warehouses in November 2019; indicators kept for 31 days at the time

Alleged: Amazon France Logistique developed or deployed the AI system implicated in this incident. Details are drawn from public reports; parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing not established by an official finding.

France's Top Administrative Court Cut Amazon's Warehouse Data Fine to 15 Million Euros

What happened

France’s data protection authority, CNIL, inspected Amazon France Logistique’s offices and two of its warehouses in November 2019, according to the Conseil d’État. On 27 December 2023 CNIL fined the company 32 million euros over data that handheld scanners generated and stored about warehouse workers, and over failures involving information given to workers and the security of video surveillance software.

According to the court, the scanners automatically generated detailed indicators about workers that managers could see. One, called “stow machine gun”, flagged two barcode scans less than 1.25 seconds apart while an employee was stowing items. “Idle time” flagged more than ten consecutive minutes without scanner activity. “Temps de latence” recorded inactivity for a limited period immediately before or after breaks. All quality and productivity indicators were kept for 31 days.

On 23 December 2025 the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, reduced the fine to 15 million euros.

What an auditable version would have shown

The court overturned CNIL’s findings that processing the three indicators lacked a lawful basis. It said the “stow machine gun” indicator could not be regarded as imposing speed requirements. On idle time and latency, it said employees might have to give managers reasons touching on their private lives, so the processing was not without effect on privacy. It found that effect was not excessive.

The court upheld CNIL’s finding that keeping all the indicators indiscriminately for 31 days, across different purposes, breached the GDPR’s data minimisation principle. It said the burden was on the company to show why each indicator needed to be kept that long. CNIL did not have to show that less data, kept for less time, would have worked as well.

An auditable record would have shown what data was being kept, what purpose it served and how long that purpose required it.

Where the gap was

According to the court, CNIL had found the nature, number and very high precision of the stored data disproportionate, as well as the retention period. The court upheld the finding of serious negligence and said the company could not have been unaware that its conduct was an infringement.

A MetricRecord is designed to hold aggregate figures, such as productivity by team, bound to the underlying records so they can be checked.

A ConductRecord keeps each indicator the system generated and the purpose it was recorded for.

MetricRecord and ConductRecord are Headlights designs.

What governance should have looked like

According to the court, Amazon France Logistique did not contest CNIL’s findings on information given to temporary workers, information about video surveillance at two warehouses, and the security of access to video surveillance software for some cameras in one warehouse.

Where an automated system generates detailed data about individual workers, best practice would be to decide how long each kind of data is needed for each purpose and to be able to justify that period.

Failure Pattern: according to France’s highest administrative court, warehouse scanners automatically generated detailed indicators about each worker, and the employer kept all of them for 31 days across several purposes without being able to show why that was necessary.

Governance Principle: an organisation whose automated systems generate personal data about workers should be able to show, for each kind of data, why it is kept and why for that long.

The reference implementation of MetricRecord and ConductRecord is open source. It lives at github.com/saffronandindia/headlights-oss, Apache 2.0 licensed and free to install. The repository is public now.

Sources

The mailing list

Fresh incident reports every week. One email to match.

We add new incidents to the library regularly, and send a single short email each week with what's new. The library stays free and open; this is just how you keep up with it.

Sent through Substack. Unsubscribe in one click.

The record

An auditable system would have produced a signed, tamper-evident record the moment this happened: what the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, and Amazon France Logistique could have produced it on demand.

This is the record the system as deployed did not produce in a signed, auditable form.

What this teaches
Capture what happened when it happens
What the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, recorded at the moment, not reconstructed after.
Sign it, so no one has to trust the record-keeper
A tamper-evident entry. Edit it later and the signature breaks. The record does not ask for the benefit of the doubt.
Make it verifiable by anyone
A court, a regulator, a customer's lawyer can check the record themselves, without taking the company, or us, at our word.

Headlights summarises publicly reported AI incidents. All summaries are independently written, attributed to their original sources, and intended for research and educational purposes. Allegations are identified as such until established through official findings.

Last reviewed September 2026. This report is based on the sources listed above and reflects information available at the time of review; later developments may not be captured. Where a person is described as charged with or alleged to have done something, that allegation is unproven unless a conviction or a court or regulatory finding is stated. Headlights publishes journalism and commentary, not legal advice.

Want to write back?

Direct to my inbox.

ellie@useheadlights.com →