Netherlands Recording Laws 2025: One-Party Consent Guide

The Netherlands permits one-party consent recording: any participant in a conversation may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from the other parties, under Articles 139a and 139b of the Wetboek van Strafrecht. Recording a conversation you do not participate in is a criminal offence carrying up to six months imprisonment.

Netherlands Recording Laws 2025: One-Party Consent Guide

In the Netherlands, any participant in a conversation may legally record it without informing the other party. This one-party consent rule flows from Articles 139a and 139b of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), and was confirmed by the Hoge Raad in 1985. Organisations recording personal data must also satisfy the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enforced locally by the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP).

Information last verified on 2026-05-15. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer. It presents general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses the recording consent law of the Netherlands under the Wetboek van Strafrecht (BWBR0001854), the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), and the Uitvoeringswet AVG (UAVG, BWBR0040940). It does not address wiretapping laws in Belgium, Germany, or other EU member states; for those, see our EU recording laws overview.

---

Quick Answer: Is the Netherlands a One-Party Consent Country?

Yes. The Netherlands is a one-party consent jurisdiction for participant recording. Under Article 139a of the Wetboek van Strafrecht, it is a criminal offence to intercept or record a conversation in a dwelling, enclosed room, or premises using a technical device if you are not a participant in that conversation and have not been instructed by a participant to make the recording. The inverse is the legal rule: a participant may always record. The Hoge Raad confirmed this reading in HR 26 maart 1985, NJ 1985/772, holding that a party to a conversation does not commit an offence under Art. 139a or 139b Sr by recording that conversation. You do not need to announce that you are recording, and you do not need the other party's consent. This applies to in-person conversations, phone calls, and video calls alike, provided you are an active participant. If you step out of the room and leave recording equipment behind, you are no longer a participant and the offence under Art. 139a applies.

---

Articles 139a and 139b: The Core Framework

The Dutch criminal law of recording rests on Title V of Book 2 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), available in full at wetten.overheid.nl (BWBR0001854). Two articles define the participant exception and the general prohibition.

Article 139a Sr targets recording in private spaces. It prohibits intentionally using a technical device to intercept (aftappen) or record (opnemen) a conversation taking place in a dwelling (woning), premises (besloten lokaal), or enclosed room (besloten ruimte) if the person making the recording is not a participant and has not been instructed by a participant. The maximum penalty under Art. 139a Sr is six months imprisonment or a category 3 fine (currently up to EUR 11,000).

Article 139b Sr extends the prohibition to public and semi-public spaces. It prohibits surreptitious recording of conversations taking place outside dwellings or enclosed rooms if the recorder is not a participant and has not been instructed by a participant. The maximum penalty under Art. 139b Sr is three months imprisonment or a category 3 fine (currently up to EUR 11,000).

Both articles carry a statutory exception for data processed or transmitted by telecommunications systems (addressed separately under Art. 139c Sr) and for interceptions carried out under the Wet op de Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdiensten 2017 (Wiv 2017), which governs the AIVD and MIVD intelligence services.

A second exception in Art. 139a applies to a device that is in place, is not concealed, and is present with the consent of the owner or occupant of the space, unless obvious misuse is evident. This covers, for example, a visible recording device set up in a conference room with the occupant's knowledge.

The Hoge Raad gave the participant exception its authoritative shape in HR 26 maart 1985, NJ 1985/772. The court held that the statutory language "without being a participant" (zonder deelnemer te zijn) means the prohibition simply does not reach a person who is actually taking part in the conversation. There is no duty to disclose, no requirement for all-party consent, and no time limit on how long a participant may record. Dutch courts and legal commentators have consistently applied this rule since 1985.

---

Articles 139c, 139d, and 139e: Telecommunications and Devices

Three further provisions in Title V address conduct beyond simple face-to-face recording.

Article 139c Sr prohibits the intentional interception or recording of data that is being transported via telecommunications infrastructure or automated systems, without the right to do so. This is the primary provision governing the interception of telephone calls, internet traffic, and data streams by third parties who are not participants. The maximum penalty under Art. 139c is one year imprisonment or a category 4 fine (up to EUR 27,500). A participant in a telephone call recording their own call does not fall within the prohibition, because the participant-exception reasoning from Arts. 139a and 139b applies by analogy as confirmed in Dutch case law.

Article 139d Sr criminalises the installation of technical equipment or software (including malware or spyware) intended to facilitate interception of data under Arts. 139a, 139b, or 139c. This is a more serious offence carrying up to four years imprisonment or a category 5 fine (up to EUR 110,000). It captures remote-access trojans and stalkerware installed on another person's device without consent.

Article 139e Sr addresses the downstream offence of knowingly possessing, using, or disclosing data that the person knows or reasonably suspects was obtained through unlawful interception under Arts. 139a through 139d. Maximum penalty: one year imprisonment or a category 4 fine. This provision means that receiving and using an unlawfully obtained recording can itself be a crime, even if you did not make the recording.

---

GDPR and UAVG: Data Protection Requirements for Recordings

Any recording that captures the voice, image, or other identifying characteristics of an identifiable person constitutes processing of personal data under Article 4(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), referred to in the Netherlands as the Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG). The Dutch national implementing statute is the Uitvoeringswet Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (UAVG), BWBR0040940, which fills in national choices left open by the GDPR and is enforced by the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP).

Criminal law and data protection law operate as parallel regimes. A recording that is lawful under Art. 139a Sr (because the recorder is a participant) may still violate the GDPR if the personal data in the recording is processed without a valid legal basis. Conversely, a recording with a GDPR legal basis may still be a criminal offence if the recorder is not a participant.

The Five GDPR Requirements for Recordings

1. Legal basis (Art. 6 GDPR). You must identify one of six legal bases: consent, contract performance, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, or legitimate interest. For personal recordings that are never shared, the household/personal-use exemption in Art. 2(2)(c) GDPR typically applies. Once you share the recording externally, that exemption falls away.

2. Transparency (Arts. 13-14 GDPR). The person recorded must be informed of the recording, its purpose, the retention period, and their rights. For business call recording, this means an audible notice at the start of the call.

3. Data minimisation (Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR). Collect only what is necessary for the stated purpose. Recording a full eight-hour shift when only a specific incident is at issue is likely disproportionate.

4. Storage limitation (Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR). Retain recordings no longer than necessary. For business calls, common practice is 30-90 days unless a specific legal or contractual purpose justifies longer retention.

5. Security (Art. 32 GDPR). Appropriate technical and organisational measures must protect recordings from unauthorised access or disclosure.

The Household Exemption

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR excludes processing "by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity." A private individual who records a conversation for personal reference, with no intention to distribute, falls within this exemption. The moment that recording is posted on social media, sent to a journalist, or used in any context beyond the recorder's personal sphere, the exemption is lost and the full GDPR regime applies.

AP Enforcement: Clearview AI (2024)

The AP demonstrated its enforcement posture in September 2024, imposing a EUR 30.5 million fine on Clearview AI for building a biometric database of Dutch residents' facial images without legal basis or consent, in violation of GDPR Articles 5, 6, 9, and 27. The AP also imposed a compliance order of up to EUR 5.1 million in additional penalties for continued non-compliance. This decision establishes that the AP will pursue significant fines for large-scale unlawful collection of biometric data, a category that encompasses facial and voice recordings.

GDPR Article 82: Civil Damages

GDPR Article 82 provides that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a GDPR infringement may claim compensation from the controller or processor. Dutch courts have applied this provision alongside the general civil damages rules in Books 6 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). A person unlawfully recorded and whose data was shared without consent may bring both a criminal complaint and a civil damages claim.

---

Recording Phone Calls in the Netherlands

Recording a telephone call you are a party to is lawful under Dutch criminal law. Article 139c Sr prohibits the interception of telecommunications by third parties who are not participants, but does not prohibit a participant from recording their own call. The Hoge Raad's 1985 participant-exception rule applies to telephone calls by analogy, and Dutch legal commentary and lower court decisions consistently confirm that you may record a call you are on without notifying the other party.

For businesses and organisations, phone call recording carries GDPR obligations. A business recording customer service calls must:

• Provide an audible notification at the start of the call explaining that the call is being recorded and the purpose.
• Identify the legal basis: typically legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR) for quality assurance, or contractual necessity for transaction verification.
• Respect data subject rights: callers may request access to or deletion of their recorded calls.
• Implement a retention schedule and delete recordings once the stated purpose is fulfilled.

A Rechtbank Den Haag decision (EJ VERZ 21-85504) clarified that where employees are informed that calls may be recorded, this does not by itself constitute consent under the GDPR. Employees have independent rights to information and objection regarding recordings of their calls.

---

Recording In-Person Conversations

In-person recording follows the same one-party consent rule. You may record any conversation you participate in, whether in a private home, a café, an office, or a public space. You do not need the other party's knowledge. You may not leave a recording device in a room you then exit: at the moment of departure you cease to be a participant, and any further recording by the abandoned device falls within Art. 139a Sr.

Dutch courts have confirmed on numerous occasions that participant recordings are admissible in civil and criminal proceedings, even when made secretly. The foundational admissibility case is Hoge Raad 09 januari 1987, ECLI:NL:HR:1987:AG5500 (Bespiede bijstandsmoeder / Edamse bijstandsmoeder, NJ 1987/928). The court held that exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence requires "a legally impermissible violation of privacy based on additional circumstances justifying that conclusion." In practice, courts weigh the interest of truth-finding against the seriousness of the privacy violation, the proportionality of the recording, and whether the recording was the only means of obtaining the evidence.

---

Recording Police and Public Officials

Recording police officers and public officials in public is currently legal in the Netherlands. Freedom of expression and the right to document the exercise of state power are protected by Article 7 of the Grondwet (Dutch Constitution) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These provisions cover photography, audio recording, and video recording of police activity in public spaces.

There are practical boundaries. Sharing footage with false accompanying commentary that attributes misconduct to a named officer can constitute defamation (smaad or laster) under Arts. 261-262 Sr. Publishing footage that reveals the home address or family details of an officer raises separate GDPR concerns. The GDPR's household exemption covers recording for personal reference; distributing footage publicly requires a legal basis, and legitimate public-interest journalism is the most commonly applicable basis.

In 2025, members of the Dutch Tweede Kamer debated a motion that would require police officers' faces to be unrecognisable in any published footage. As of the date of this article, no legislation implementing that requirement had entered into force. The existing legal position, confirmed in parliamentary exchanges with the Minister of Justice, is that filming officers in public is permitted.

The 2012 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV and Others v. The Netherlands (App. No. 39315/06) established an important limit in the other direction: the state may not use surveillance against journalists to identify their confidential sources without adequate statutory safeguards. The Strasbourg court found that the Netherlands had violated ECHR Arts. 8 and 10 when the AIVD used interception measures against De Telegraaf reporters, holding that the statutory basis invoked did not provide appropriate protection against targeted surveillance aimed at discovering journalistic sources.

---

Workplace Recording in the Netherlands

Workplace recording in the Netherlands is governed by a triangular framework: the criminal law (Arts. 139a-139c Sr for the participant exception and the prohibition on third-party recording), the GDPR/AVG for data protection, and the Wet op de ondernemingsraden (WOR) for the collective rights of employees through the works council.

Employer Recording of Employees

Employers who wish to monitor employees through audio recording, video surveillance, computer monitoring, or telephone call recording must satisfy all of the following conditions, as set out by the AP in its guidance on monitoring employees (Conditions for monitoring employees, autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl):

• Legitimate interest: The employer's interest (for example, protecting company assets, ensuring workplace safety, or quality assurance) must outweigh the employee's fundamental right to a private life under ECHR Art. 8.
• Necessity: The monitoring must be necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose; less intrusive alternatives must have been considered and rejected.
• Transparency: Employees must be fully informed about what is monitored, why, how, for how long, and who has access to the data.
• Confidentiality of private communications: Employers may not read emails that are evidently private in nature, nor may they monitor personal telephone calls.
• Works council approval: Article 27(1)(l) of the Wet op de ondernemingsraden (WOR, BWBR0002747) requires the employer to obtain prior consent from the ondernemingsraad (works council) before introducing any system for monitoring personnel data or assessing performance. The AP and Dutch courts have confirmed that introducing a monitoring system without works council approval renders the scheme invalid.
• Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA): Large-scale or systematic monitoring requires a DPIA under GDPR Art. 35 to assess and document the privacy risks before deployment.

Covert surveillance of employees is prohibited except in narrow circumstances: there must be a concrete and demonstrable suspicion of serious misconduct or criminal activity, less intrusive methods must have been exhausted, the monitoring must be time-limited and proportionate, and any data collected may only be used for the specific purpose of the investigation. Continuous or permanent covert monitoring is disproportionate and unlawful.

Employee Recording of Employers and Managers

An employee who is present in a meeting with a manager or employer may record that conversation under the one-party consent rule of Arts. 139a and 139b Sr. The employee does not need to announce the recording. Dutch courts have consistently confirmed this principle.

However, Dutch courts have also recognised that covert workplace recording can damage employment relationships and affect procedural outcomes:

• Rechtbank Noord-Holland (2022): An employee secretly recorded a conversation in which a director made a profit-sharing promise. When the employer later denied the promise, the court admitted the recording and awarded the employee EUR 485,939.85 in profit-sharing on the strength of the recording.
• Rechtbank Rotterdam (2018): A court acknowledged the recording was not a criminal offence, but found that prolonged secret recording, combined with using the recordings as a threat, contributed to an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship and justified termination.
• Rechtbank Den Haag (2022): The court found that secretly making and publishing eight recordings of performance reviews was blameworthy, caused a serious breakdown in the relationship, and violated GDPR lawfulness and transparency principles.
• Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (2021): The court held that even where an employee claimed memory difficulties as justification, a good-faith employee is expected to state their intent to record rather than record covertly.

The practical takeaway from Dutch case law is that participant recording by employees is lawful, frequently admitted as evidence, and can be decisive in employment disputes. At the same time, covert recording done systematically, used as leverage, or shared publicly can justify employment consequences and civil liability independent of any criminal charge.

The Chetu Webcam Case (2022)

A notable employer-surveillance case involved U.S. software company Chetu, which terminated a Dutch remote employee for refusing to keep his webcam on for the entire nine-hour workday. The Kantonrechter (Rechtbank Limburg, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2022:6152) held that requiring continuous video surveillance of an employee in his home violated ECHR Art. 8. The court ordered Chetu to pay approximately EUR 75,000 in damages covering unpaid wages, wrongful termination damages, and transition assistance. The judgment applies directly to employers of Dutch residents, whether or not the employer is a Dutch company.

---

Article 139f: Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras

Article 139f Sr is frequently confused with the audio-recording provisions, but it is a distinct offence governing visual recording. Art. 139f Sr prohibits the intentional recording of a person's image in a dwelling or a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, using a technical device that is not clearly visible and was installed without notice to the person. Covered locations include homes, changing rooms, washrooms, and similar private spaces. The maximum penalty is one year imprisonment or a category 4 fine.

Article 139g Sr adds that making public an image obtained in violation of Art. 139f is itself an offence. This covers the posting on social media of footage taken with a hidden camera in a private space.

Art. 139f is aimed at voyeurism and hidden-camera surveillance in private spaces. It does not prohibit audio recording by conversation participants under Arts. 139a and 139b, nor does it prohibit visible cameras in private spaces installed with the consent of the occupant.

---

NCII, Deepfakes, and the Wet seksuele misdrijven (2024)

The Dutch legal framework for non-consensual intimate images (NCII) and deepfake sexual content changed fundamentally on 1 July 2024. The former Article 139h Sr, which criminalised the distribution of sexual image material without consent (wraakporno), was repealed when the Wet seksuele misdrijven (Wet van 22 mei 2024, BWBR0049509) came into force.

Article 254ba Sr (inserted by the Wet seksuele misdrijven) now governs this area. It criminalises the creation, possession, or distribution of sexual image material without the consent of the person depicted, regardless of whether the material was recorded, created by artificial intelligence, or generated through any other means. The provision is deliberately technology-neutral. Maximum penalty: two years imprisonment or a category 4 fine (up to EUR 27,500).

Parliamentary question-and-answer exchanges in the Tweede Kamer in 2025 confirmed that AI-generated deepfake nude images of real persons, including those created with "undressing" applications, fall within Art. 254ba Sr. The perpetrator's use of AI rather than a camera does not affect criminal liability.

A 2025 parliamentary response (Tweede Kamer vergaderjaar 2025-2026, document 2026D17683) confirmed that schools and parents are being provided with information about the applicability of Art. 254ba to deepfake images produced by students to harass peers.

EU AI Act: Deepfake Disclosure

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), which entered into force on 1 August 2024, introduces separate obligations for AI-generated content at Article 50. Providers of AI systems that generate synthetic content depicting real persons (including deepfakes) must ensure that the output is marked or labelled as artificially generated or manipulated. These transparency obligations become enforceable across all EU member states, including the Netherlands, from 2 August 2026. From that date, distributing an AI-generated video of a real person without the required label violates EU law as well as Dutch criminal law if the content is of a sexual nature.

---

Recording Evidence in Dutch Courts

Dutch courts take a pragmatic approach to the admissibility of recordings obtained without the other party's knowledge. The foundational authority is Hoge Raad 09 januari 1987, ECLI:NL:HR:1987:AG5500 (Bespiede bijstandsmoeder, NJ 1987/928). The Hoge Raad held that exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence requires a legally impermissible violation of privacy based on additional circumstances justifying that conclusion. Courts weigh the interest of truth-finding against the severity of the privacy violation and whether the recording was obtained proportionately.

Secretly recorded participant recordings are routinely admitted in Dutch civil proceedings. There is no categorical exclusionary rule equivalent to some other European jurisdictions. The court may decline to admit a recording if the privacy violation was disproportionate, but this is fact-specific. Courts may also factor the act of secret recording into costs awards or compensation assessments, as illustrated by the Amsterdam District Court (2010) case in which lower compensation was awarded partly because the recordings escalated the dispute.

In criminal proceedings, the admissibility of recordings obtained by private parties follows the same balancing framework. Police and prosecution are held to stricter standards: interceptions conducted without statutory authority are generally excluded.

---

Penalties Summary

Dutch criminal law assigns offences to fine categories. For recording-related offences, the relevant penalties are:

---

Cross-Border Recording

When one party is in the Netherlands and another is in a different country, multiple legal frameworks may apply simultaneously. Dutch criminal law applies to conduct on Dutch territory: if you are in the Netherlands and record a call, Arts. 139a-139c Sr govern your conduct. If your counterpart is in Germany, they are simultaneously subject to German recording law.

The GDPR applies wherever EU residents' personal data is processed. If you record a call with a person in the Netherlands, the GDPR applies to that recording regardless of where you are located, under GDPR Article 3(1) (establishment principle) and Article 3(2) (targeting principle). This means that a business in the United States recording calls with Dutch customers must satisfy GDPR requirements: legal basis, transparency notice, data minimisation, and retention limits.

The safest approach when recording cross-border calls is to comply with the stricter of the applicable laws. If one jurisdiction requires all-party consent (for example, Germany under § 201 StGB in certain contexts) and the other requires only one-party consent, obtain consent from all parties or provide audible notice before the call is recorded. This approach satisfies both regimes.

---

Summary: Netherlands Recording Laws at a Glance

---

---

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in the Netherlands as of 15 May 2026. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. The information covers the Wetboek van Strafrecht (BWBR0001854), the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), the Uitvoeringswet AVG (UAVG, BWBR0040940), and the Wet seksuele misdrijven (BWBR0049509) as in force at the date of verification. Statutes may be amended after this date. If you face a specific legal situation involving recording in the Netherlands, consult a lawyer (advocaat) registered with the Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten.

---

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER -- author roster pending]

---

Authorities Cited

1. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 139a, BWBR0001854 (as of 1 January 2025). https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01/0/BoekTweede/TiteldeelV/Artikel139a/informatie
2. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 139b, BWBR0001854. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01
3. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 139c, BWBR0001854. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01
4. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 139d, BWBR0001854. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01
5. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 139e, BWBR0001854. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01
6. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 139f, BWBR0001854. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2025-01-01
7. Wetboek van Strafrecht, Art. 254ba, BWBR0001854 (as amended by Wet seksuele misdrijven, in force 1 July 2024). https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-07-01/0/BoekTweede/TiteldeelXIV/Artikel254ba/informatie
8. Wet seksuele misdrijven, BWBR0049509 (in force 1 July 2024). https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0049509&g=2024-07-01&z=2024-07-01
9. Hoge Raad 26 maart 1985, NJ 1985/772 (participant recording one-party consent rule). https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
10. Hoge Raad 09 januari 1987, ECLI:NL:HR:1987:AG5500, NJ 1987/928 (Bespiede bijstandsmoeder -- evidence admissibility). https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI%3ANL%3AHR%3A1987%3AAG5500
11. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
12. Uitvoeringswet Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (UAVG), BWBR0040940. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0040940/
13. Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, Conditions for monitoring employees. https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/themes/employment-and-benefits/monitoring-employees/conditions-for-monitoring-employees
14. AP Decision, fine Clearview AI, September 2024. https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/documents/decision-fine-clearview-ai
15. Wet op de ondernemingsraden (WOR), Art. 27, BWBR0002747. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002747
16. Grondwet (Dutch Constitution), Art. 7, BWBR0001840. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840
17. European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 10. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng
18. ECtHR, Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV and Others v. The Netherlands, App. No. 39315/06, judgment 22 November 2012. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-114439
19. EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 50. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
20. Kantonrechter Roermond (Rechtbank Limburg), ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2022:6152 (Chetu webcam case). https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
21. Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, Camera surveillance at organisations. https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/themes/camera-surveillance/camera-surveillance-at-organisations/rules-for-camera-surveillance-for-organisations

---

Related Articles

• EU Recording Laws: GDPR and Consent Rules Across Member States
• World Recording Laws: International Consent and Privacy Guide
• GDPR and Data Privacy Laws

---

Last updated: 2026-05-15. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-05-15.

More on the Netherlands law

This page covers one area of law in the Netherlands. For a complete guide to the Netherlands's legal system, including employment, family, driving, tenancy, inheritance, criminal law and consumer rights, see our full Netherlands law hub.