Czech Republic Recording Laws: One-Party Consent, GDPR, and Deepfake Rules (2026)

The Czech Republic is a one-party consent jurisdiction. Under Občanský zákoník § 88(1) (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.), a participant in any conversation may record it without the knowledge or consent of other parties. Trestní zákoník § 182 applies only to third-party interception, not participant recording.

Czech recording law sits at the intersection of civil personality rights, criminal statutes, labor protections, GDPR, and two landmark court decisions that resolved a fundamental tension between privacy and the right to a fair trial. The country does not criminalize participant recording. A person who is party to a conversation may record it under the statutory license in Občanský zákoník § 88(1) (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.). But the legal framework that governs what can be done with that recording, when courts will admit it as evidence, and what obligations apply to businesses is substantially more detailed than a simple one-party consent label captures.

The governing statutes are Act No. 89/2012 Coll. (the Civil Code, Občanský zákoník), Act No. 40/2009 Coll. (the Criminal Code, Trestní zákoník), Act No. 262/2006 Coll. (the Labor Code, Zákoník práce), and Act No. 110/2019 Coll. (the Personal Data Processing Act implementing GDPR). The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod), Article 10, provides the constitutional foundation for privacy protection. A 2026 criminal code amendment added § 191a targeting deepfake pornography and non-consensual intimate image sharing, effective January 1, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers recording consent law in the Czech Republic under Czech national statutes and EU-level law (GDPR, EU AI Act) applicable there. It does not address Slovak law, Hungarian law, or other neighboring jurisdictions. For EU-wide data protection rules, see our world data privacy laws overview.

Quick Answer: Is Czech Republic One-Party Consent?

Yes. The Czech Republic applies a one-party consent standard to the act of recording a conversation. Under Občanský zákoník § 88(1), a participant in a private communication may record that communication without the knowledge or consent of other parties when the recording serves to exercise or protect a legal right or legally protected interest. There is no Czech statute that requires notifying the other side before pressing record during a call or in-person conversation. The Constitutional Court confirmed in 2014 (Case II ÚS 1774/14) and the Supreme Court confirmed in 2018 (Case 21 Cdo 1267/2018) that recordings made on this basis are admissible as evidence in civil and labor proceedings, subject to a three-step test. Criminal liability for recording one's own conversation does not arise under Trestní zákoník § 182, which applies only to third-party interception.

Civil Code §§ 84-90: Personality Rights and the One-Party Consent License

Czech recording law begins with Part One, Title I, Division 5 of the Civil Code, specifically §§ 84-90, which protect personal rights (ochrana osobnosti).

Section 86 states the default privacy rule:

"No one may interfere with another's privacy without legal justification. In particular, it is not permitted without consent to violate a person's private spaces, monitor their private life in audio or video, use such recordings, or distribute recordings about a person's private life made by third parties, as well as utilize their private correspondence of a personal nature."

Section 84 establishes that capturing an identifiable person's likeness requires their consent. Section 85 extends that requirement to distribution of such a likeness. Section 87 allows a person who has granted consent to recording to revoke that consent even after it was given, though the revoking party may owe compensation if the revocation causes unjustified harm to someone who relied on the consent.

Section 88(1) creates the exception:

"Consent is not required if a likeness or an audio or video recording is made or used for the exercise or protection of other people's rights or legally protected interests."

This is the zakonnná licence (statutory license) that enables participant recording in Czech law. A person recording to protect a legal interest -- documenting a landlord's threats, preserving evidence of discriminatory statements by a manager, capturing verbal fraudulent representations by a counterparty -- falls within § 88(1).

Section 88(2) adds further exemptions: recordings made for official purposes under law, recordings of a person acting publicly in a matter of public interest, and recordings used for scientific, artistic, or journalistic purposes. Section 89 extends the journalistic/artistic exception to recordings made in public settings, subject to the requirement that the use respects the legitimate interests of persons captured.

Section 90 imposes a proportionality ceiling on all of these licenses: any lawful basis for interfering with privacy, including § 88, cannot be applied in a manner that is disproportionate to the legitimate interests of the recorded person. A participant who records a conversation to protect a legal interest must still ensure the scope and use of the recording are proportionate. Recording far more than is needed, or using a lawfully made recording to expose matters unrelated to the legal interest that justified it, moves outside § 88's protection.

What the § 88 License Does Not Cover

The statutory license requires a genuine connection to legal protection or an enumerated purpose. Recording a conversation out of curiosity, for entertainment, to blackmail someone, or to post private statements on social media has no foundation in § 88. Czech courts have consistently rejected attempts to invoke § 88 as a general permission to record anyone at any time.

Constitutional Court Case II ÚS 1774/14: Secret Recordings in Employment Disputes

The most consequential judicial statement on recording law in the Czech Republic came from the Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court) on December 9, 2014, in Case No. II ÚS 1774/14.

The case arose from a wrongful-termination dispute. An employee was dismissed, allegedly for redundancy. The employee believed the real reason was retaliation for complaints raised with foreign management. Before termination, the employee secretly recorded conversations with supervisors.

Lower courts refused to admit the recordings, citing the supervisors' privacy rights under Občanský zákoník. The case reached the Constitutional Court.

The Court sided with the employee. It held that when the right to a fair trial (právo na spravedlivý proces) collides with the right to privacy (právo na soukromí), courts must weigh both on the specific facts of the case. The Court stated that general courts "unjustifiably prioritize personality protection over the right to a fair trial" when they exclude employee recordings "capable of substantially affecting factual findings in a case."

The Court established a three-step test:

1. Relevance -- Is the recording pertinent to the legal dispute?
2. Necessity -- Could the recorded facts have been proven through less privacy-intrusive means?
3. Proportionality -- Does the harm caused to the recorded person by using the recording outweigh the legal interest of the recording party?

The Court also noted that even if the recording incidentally captured a third party's personal affairs, the dismissed employee's right to fair proceedings would still take precedence because the employee is the structurally weaker party in an employment relationship.

This decision did not approve all secret recordings. It created the framework courts must apply when recordings are tendered as evidence. The three-step test governs every subsequent case.

Supreme Court Case 21 Cdo 1267/2018: Employer Use of Secret Recordings

On August 14, 2018, the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court) issued its own landmark ruling on secret recordings in Case No. 21 Cdo 1267/2018.

The facts involved an employer who recorded a conversation with an employee. The employee had threatened to damage the employer's ability to receive government subsidies unless the employer provided another lucrative position. The employer submitted the recording to support an immediate termination for cause.

The Supreme Court held that secret recordings are admissible in civil proceedings under these conditions: the recording proves facts that cannot be proven in any other way, and the circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that it is not possible to prioritize the affected person's rights over the protected interest at stake.

The ruling confirmed that both employees and employers may rely on secret recordings under the three-step test, and it explicitly reversed earlier judicial practice that had required the recorded person's consent before a recording could be admitted in civil proceedings.

Trestní Zákoník Framework: Criminal Offenses Against Privacy and Communications

Chapter II, Division 2 of the Trestní zákoník (Act No. 40/2009 Coll.) addresses criminal offenses against personal freedom, privacy, and secrecy of correspondence. The provisions most directly relevant to recording law are §§ 180, 182, 183, and 184.

Section 180 (Neoprávněné nakládání s osobními údaji) criminalizes the unlawful disclosure, communication, or processing of personal data collected in connection with the exercise of public authority, where the processing causes serious harm to the rights or legitimate interests of the data subject. This provision targets officials and those exercising delegated public functions who abuse personal data they obtained by virtue of that authority. Penalty: up to three years for the basic offense; up to five years if the perpetrator commits the offense as a public official acting within their official capacity.

Section 182 (Porušení tajemství zpráv) covers the breach of secrecy of transmitted messages. It applies to any person who unlawfully opens, intercepts, records, or otherwise gains access to the content of a private communication to which they are not a party. Penalties are tiered:

• Basic offense: up to two years imprisonment or prohibition of activity
• If the offender discloses secrets from the intercepted communication: one to five years imprisonment
• If committed as part of an organized group, from a contemptible motive, or causing significant damage: six months to three years imprisonment
• If an official person commits the offense and causes large-scale damage: one to five years imprisonment or a fine

There is no criminal liability under § 182 for a participant who records their own communication. The provision is aimed squarely at third-party interception.

Section 183 (Porušení tajemství listin a jiných dokumentů uchovávaných v soukromí) criminalizes unlawfully violating the confidentiality of a document, written record, photograph, film, other recording, computer-stored data, or other private document by disclosing it, providing access to a third party, or using it without authorization. Penalty: up to two years imprisonment.

Section 184 (Pomluva) is Czech criminal defamation. It penalizes making false statements about a person that are capable of seriously lowering that person's standing in society. While not primarily a recording offense, § 184 becomes relevant when a recording is used as the vehicle for spreading false information damaging to a person's reputation. Penalty: up to one year imprisonment; up to two years if the offense is committed through a public medium.

State-Authorized Interception

Lawful interception by state authorities is governed separately under Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb. (Code of Criminal Procedure), § 88. Note that this § 88 is entirely distinct from Občanský zákoník § 88. Under the Criminal Procedure Code provision, police may intercept communications only with a written court order, only in proceedings involving serious offenses specified in the provision, and only when a reasonable presumption exists that significant facts relevant to the criminal case will be obtained. Court authorization is mandatory before any interception begins.

Phone Call Recording

Recording a telephone call you participate in is lawful in the Czech Republic. The Občanský zákoník § 88 framework applies to telephone conversations in the same way it applies to face-to-face discussions. A party to a call may record it without announcing this to the other side, provided the recording serves to protect a legal right or interest under § 88(1).

The Electronic Communications Act (Zákon č. 127/2005 Sb., as amended by Act No. 374/2021 Coll. implementing the European Electronic Communications Code, Directive 2018/1972) governs telecommunications infrastructure and provider obligations. It does not create a private consent requirement for participant recording of phone calls. The Act primarily addresses provider obligations to facilitate lawful interception by authorities pursuant to a court order, and consumer-protection obligations around electronic services.

No Czech statute requires a private individual to announce they are recording a call they participate in. The announcement obligation applies to businesses under GDPR, which requires transparency before or at the time of data collection.

Third-party interception of a phone call falls under Trestní zákoník § 182 and is a criminal offense, as described in the Trestní zákoník framework section above.

In-Person Recording

Face-to-face recording follows the same Občanský zákoník framework as telephone recording. A participant may record. A non-participant who records without the consent of any party to the conversation has no protection under § 88(1).

The physical context influences the privacy analysis. A conversation in a private home carries the strongest privacy expectations under § 86. A conversation in a semi-public setting such as an office lobby, shared workspace, restaurant, or hotel lobby carries a reduced but real expectation of privacy. Czech courts apply § 90's proportionality limit when weighing these contextual factors.

Conversations in settings with virtually no reasonable privacy expectation -- open public council meetings, street-level interactions between citizens and officials, parliamentary sessions -- are covered by the § 88(2) public-interest exception as well.

Recording in Public Spaces and Recording the Police

Czech law does not prohibit recording in public spaces. Streets, parks, government buildings open to the public, and commercial areas are spaces with reduced privacy expectations where recording is generally permitted.

Občanský zákoník § 88(2) explicitly covers recording a person who "publicly acts in a matter of public interest." Police officers executing their official duties in public, elected politicians speaking at public events, civil servants conducting public hearings, and judges presiding over open hearings all fall within this exception. No consent is required. The key limitation is the word "publicly" -- private conversations of officials that do not relate to their official functions retain full § 86 protection.

Recording a police officer who stops you on a public street, issues a fine, or conducts a public enforcement action is protected under § 88(2). Using that recording to make a complaint about police conduct or to establish evidence in a proceeding is consistent with § 88(1).

Systematically following and recording a specific individual in public spaces can constitute harassment or stalking, which is separately prohibited. Recording in public with the purpose of humiliating someone, blackmailing them, or posting embarrassing content without a legal purpose has no § 88 protection and may implicate Trestní zákoník § 183 or § 184.

CCTV and Surveillance Cameras

Security cameras on private property monitoring one's own premises are lawful. If cameras capture public spaces or neighboring property, GDPR applies to any footage that captures identifiable individuals.

The UOOU published CCTV methodology that property owners must follow. Requirements include visible signage at all monitored areas identifying the data controller, stating the purpose and legal basis, and disclosing the retention period. The 2024 UOOU Kontrolní plán focused on CCTV in public transport.

Workplace Recording: Employees and Employers

Employee Rights

Following the Constitutional Court's 2014 decision and the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling, employees in the Czech Republic may secretly record workplace conversations when they have a genuine legal interest to protect. Common situations include:

• Documenting verbal harassment, bullying, or a hostile work environment
• Preserving evidence of discriminatory statements
• Recording threats of illegal retaliation for exercising a workplace right
• Capturing oral promises an employer later denies making

The recording must satisfy the three-step test -- relevant to a specific legal claim, necessary because no less intrusive proof exists, and proportionate. An employee who records routine meetings without a specific threatened legal harm is on weaker ground under both § 88(1) and the admissibility framework of Case 21 Cdo 1267/2018.

Employer Restrictions

Employers face significantly stricter rules than employees. Zákoník práce § 316 (Act No. 262/2006 Coll.) prohibits employers from monitoring employees' private telephone calls, recording them, or conducting covert surveillance unless a serious reason exists that is directly tied to the specific nature of the employer's business activities.

When a serious reason does exist, three conditions must all be satisfied:

• Employees must be informed in advance about the scope, methods, and duration of monitoring.
• Monitoring must be a proportionate measure, not a first resort.
• The scope of monitoring must be limited to what the documented business necessity requires.

The UOOU has clarified that general productivity monitoring does not qualify as a "serious reason" for covert surveillance. Sector-specific justifications -- financial services call-recording obligations, security-sensitive environments -- require documented analysis demonstrating that the monitoring is necessary and limited in scope. Employers who record without meeting these conditions face civil liability and potential GDPR fines from the UOOU.

GDPR and the Role of the UOOU

The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) applies in the Czech Republic with direct effect. Any recording that captures an identifiable natural person's voice, image, or other identifying information constitutes processing of personal data under GDPR Article 4.

The Czech national implementing statute is Zákon č. 110/2019 Sb. (zákon o zpracování osobních údajů), in force since April 24, 2019. It designates the UOOU (Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů), headquartered in Prague at Pplk. Sochora 27, 170 00 Praha 7, as the sole supervisory authority for GDPR in the Czech Republic.

Lawful Basis for Recording

GDPR Article 6 requires every act of personal data processing to rest on a lawful basis. For recordings, the most relevant bases are:

• Consent (Art. 6(1)(a)): The recorded person freely, specifically, and unambiguously agreed. Pre-ticked boxes and bundled consent in general terms of service do not qualify.
• Legitimate interests (Art. 6(1)(f)): The controller's interest in recording outweighs the data subject's privacy rights after a documented balancing exercise. Security recordings and fraud prevention often rely on this basis.
• Legal obligation (Art. 6(1)(c)): A legal rule requires the recording, such as financial services call-monitoring obligations under MiFID II or national equivalents.
• Vital interests (Art. 6(1)(d)): Recording is necessary to protect someone's life.

For individuals recording conversations for purely personal use with no commercial or professional connection, GDPR's household exemption (Art. 2(2)(c)) generally applies, exempting the activity from GDPR compliance obligations. A person who records a landlord-tenant dispute to file a civil claim is engaged in a household activity, not a professional data operation.

Notification and Transparency

Businesses that record calls must notify callers before the recording begins. The notification must identify the data controller, state the purpose of recording, identify the legal basis, disclose the retention period, and describe the data subject's rights. This applies both to inbound call centers and to businesses that routinely record outgoing calls.

For CCTV, signage at the perimeter of monitored areas must convey the same categories of information. The UOOU has published specific methodology documents on CCTV signage format and content.

UOOU Enforcement

The UOOU can impose fines of up to 20 million EUR or 4% of global annual turnover for serious GDPR violations, and up to 10 million EUR or 2% of global turnover for lesser violations.

In 2024, the UOOU imposed a fine of approximately 351 million CZK (13.9 million EUR, confirmed by the EDPB) against Avast Software s.r.o. for unlawful processing of personal data. The UOOU found that Avast transferred pseudonymized browsing history of approximately 100 million users to a sister company without a proper legal basis under GDPR Article 6. This remains the largest GDPR penalty issued in the Czech Republic.

The UOOU's 2025 Kontrolní plán (inspection plan) focused on the right to erasure, coordinated through the EDPB's Coordinated Enforcement Framework (CEF 2025). During the first months of 2025, the UOOU also imposed fines totaling 4,443,000 CZK against website operators for GDPR violations related to cookie processing. Total complaints to the UOOU rose by more than 68% in 2025 compared with the prior year, reaching the highest volume since GDPR took effect in 2018.

The UOOU's 2026 Kontrolní plán focuses on compliance with the transparency and information obligation principles under GDPR Articles 13 and 14. Organizations that record calls or operate surveillance systems and have not audited their privacy notices in recent years should prioritize that review in light of the 2026 inspection focus.

Non-Consensual Intimate Images and Deepfakes: Trestní Zákoník § 191a

The Czech criminal law landscape for non-consensual intimate images (NCII) and AI-generated deepfakes changed fundamentally on January 1, 2026, when a comprehensive reform of the Trestní zákoník introduced § 191a.

Section 191a creates a new offense of "zneužití identity pro výrobu a šíření pornografie" (misuse of identity for the production and distribution of pornography). It targets any person who, with knowledge that a person did not consent, produces, offers, mediates, introduces into circulation, or makes publicly accessible (typically via a publicly accessible computer network) any pornographic work that depicts or otherwise uses that person.

Three aspects of § 191a are particularly significant:

No harm requirement. Unlike some foreign analogs, § 191a does not require the prosecution to prove that the victim suffered serious harm. The production or distribution of the material without consent is itself the offense. This lowers the evidentiary burden substantially compared with earlier prosecutorial attempts to use existing harassment or privacy statutes.

AI deepfakes are covered. The provision expressly applies to content that "depicts or otherwise uses" a person, encompassing AI-generated synthetic content in which a real person's likeness is used without consent. Producing deepfake pornography of an identifiable person without their consent is a criminal act regardless of whether any real recording of that person underlies the synthetic content.

Tiered penalties. The basic offense carries a sentence of up to two years imprisonment. Aggravated forms -- involving online distribution via publicly accessible networks, causing significant harm, acting within an organized group, or acting with intent to profit -- carry a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.

Before § 191a, Czech prosecutors had to work with Trestní zákoník § 183 (secrecy of private documents) and civil remedies under Občanský zákoník §§ 81-82, 86 for NCII cases. Those tools were cumbersome because they required proof of additional elements. Section 191a closes this gap.

EU Directive Context

The § 191a reform was enacted in part to implement Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which required EU member states to criminalize the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including AI deepfakes, by May 2026. The Czech Republic implemented the requirement ahead of the directive deadline.

EU AI Act and Recording: Article 50 Obligations

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act) entered into force on August 1, 2024, and applies in the Czech Republic with direct effect as EU law.

Article 50 imposes transparency and labeling obligations on providers and deployers of certain AI systems. The provision most directly relevant to recording and synthetic media is Article 50(4): deployers of AI systems that generate or manipulate audio, video, image, or text content that amounts to a deepfake must disclose that the content is artificially generated or manipulated. For content depicting real or realistic-looking persons, the disclosure must be machine-readable and conspicuous to the audience.

Scope. The labeling obligation applies to providers developing AI systems that generate synthetic audio, video, or images of identifiable or realistic-looking persons, and to deployers who use such systems to produce content. Purely personal and non-commercial uses are subject to a proportionality carve-out but professional uses are not.

National enforcement. National competent authorities designated under the EU AI Act became active from August 2, 2025. In the Czech Republic, the designated authority is the Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing (ÚNMZ) acting in coordination with the UOOU for GDPR-intersecting questions and with sectoral regulators. The European AI Office at the Commission oversees consistent application across member states.

Interaction with § 191a. The EU AI Act's labeling obligations and Czech § 191a operate on different dimensions. The AI Act requires labeling of AI-generated content involving real persons regardless of consent. Section 191a criminalizes production and distribution of non-consensual intimate AI deepfakes regardless of whether they are labeled. A properly labeled AI deepfake of an intimate nature produced without the person's consent still violates § 191a.

Interaction with GDPR. The EDPB has issued Guidelines 3/2025 on the interplay between the DSA and GDPR. Using an AI system to generate synthetic recordings of identifiable individuals constitutes processing of biometric or other personal data under GDPR when the generated content is linked to a real identifiable person. Organizations using AI recording or synthetic voice tools must ensure their GDPR lawful basis analysis covers the AI-generated outputs, not just source recordings.

Cross-Border Recording

Czech Participant Calling Internationally

When a Czech-based participant records a call with a person located in another country, Czech law governs the recording act itself under the principle that the law of the place where the recording party is located applies to their personal conduct. Under Občanský zákoník § 88(1), the Czech participant may record without notifying the foreign party.

The foreign party's jurisdiction may have its own rules. If the foreign party is in Germany (which requires all-party consent in most contexts under StGB § 201), the foreign party may have a claim under their own law even if the Czech participant acted lawfully under Czech law. Czech participants making cross-border calls should be aware of the consent rules in the destination country when recordings may need to be used in legal proceedings there.

Within the EU, the absence of a harmonized recording consent standard means that conduct lawful in the Czech Republic as a one-party consent state may conflict with the law of an all-party consent state such as Germany or Austria. GDPR does harmonize the data-protection obligations that arise once a recording is made, but it does not harmonize the underlying consent-to-record question.

Foreign Callers Into Czech Republic

A foreign national calling a Czech Republic number has their call governed by Czech law for the Czech participant's conduct. The Czech party may record under § 88(1) without the foreign caller's knowledge. The foreign party's domestic law may additionally apply to their own recording activities.

Cross-Border GDPR Transfers

When recordings made in the Czech Republic are transferred to servers or subsidiaries outside the EU/EEA, GDPR Chapter V applies. Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), adequacy decisions, or other GDPR-compliant transfer mechanisms must be in place before recordings containing personal data leave the EU. The Avast case was partly a lesson in the consequences of intra-group transfers without a properly documented legal basis.

Penalties Reference Table

Business Compliance Checklist

Organizations recording calls, meetings, or video in Czech Republic should follow these steps.

For Call Recording:

• Announce the recording before it begins, stating the purpose and the legal basis under GDPR.
• Document the lawful basis (consent, legitimate interests, legal obligation) in your GDPR Article 30 records of processing activities.
• Store recordings securely with access controls limited to authorized personnel.
• Set defined retention periods and automate deletion when retention expires.
• Build a process to respond to data subject access, erasure, and objection requests within GDPR's one-month period.
• Review transparency notices in light of the UOOU's 2026 inspection focus on information obligations under GDPR Articles 13-14.

For Workplace Monitoring:

• Conduct a legitimate interest assessment documenting the specific business necessity before implementing any monitoring.
• Issue written notice to employees describing the scope, purpose, monitoring methods, and duration before monitoring begins.
• Restrict monitoring to what is necessary -- do not record employee personal calls unless a sector-specific obligation exists.
• Review and document the monitoring policy at least annually.

For Security Cameras:

• Post visible signage at all camera locations identifying the controller, purpose, legal basis, and retention period.
• Limit camera coverage to your own property as far as possible.
• Retain footage only for the period stated in your signage and automate deletion.
• Maintain GDPR Article 30 processing records for the CCTV system.

For AI-Generated or AI-Manipulated Content:

• Any AI system generating synthetic audio or video depicting identifiable or realistic-looking persons must label outputs as AI-generated, with machine-readable metadata, per EU AI Act Article 50.
• If the generated content involves personal data of identifiable individuals, document the GDPR lawful basis for that processing separately.
• Do not produce, distribute, or facilitate distribution of AI-generated intimate content without explicit consent from the depicted person -- criminal liability under § 191a applies from January 1, 2026 regardless of whether the content is labeled.

Key Statutory References

The primary legal sources governing recording in the Czech Republic:

• Občanský zákoník (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.), §§ 84-90: personal rights, image rights, audio and video recording, the § 88(1) statutory license
• Trestní zákoník (Act No. 40/2009 Coll.), §§ 180-184, § 191a: criminal offenses against personal data, privacy, secrecy of correspondence, NCII, and deepfakes
• Zákoník práce (Act No. 262/2006 Coll.), § 316: employer monitoring restrictions
• Zákon č. 110/2019 Sb. (Personal Data Processing Act): Czech GDPR implementation, designation of UOOU
• Zákon č. 127/2005 Sb. (Electronic Communications Act, as amended by Act No. 374/2021 Coll.): telecoms regulation
• Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb. (Code of Criminal Procedure), § 88: state-authorized interception
• Listina základních práv a svobod, čl. 10: constitutional privacy and dignity protection
• GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679): data protection, lawful basis, data subject rights
• EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), Art. 50: deepfake and synthetic content labeling

Full Czech statutory texts are available at zakonyprolidi.cz. English translations are available through the Council of Europe (rm.coe.int Czech Criminal Code 2023) and WIPO Lex.