INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Supreme Court of Cassation: The employee who forwards the group chat video to the employ-er violates the principle of secrecy of correspondence between private individuals.
An employee who forwards a video shared in a private WhatsApp chat between colleagues to the employer violates the constitutional principle of secrecy of communications between private individuals. The consequence of this disclosure led to the dismissal of the author of the video, but the Court of Cassation highlighted how this action constitutes a violation of the right to privacy protected by Article 15 of the Constitution.
Messages, images, and videos shared within a closed group chat between employees fall under the sphere of private correspondence. As a result, when a member of the chat decides to transmit that content to external parties, such as the employer, the protection of confidentiality is lost, in violation of the rules on the protection of personal communications.
Even if the means of communication used is an instant messaging application such as WhatsApp, the principle does not change: what matters is that access to content was limited exclusively to group participants. The protection of the secrecy of correspondence, in fact, extends to any system that allows the visibility of content to be restricted to a small circle of people, as happens in private chat groups.
These principles were reiterated by the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 5334 of 28 February 2025, relating to the case of an employee of a luxury store, fired on the spot for sharing a video in chat that filmed a customer with a robust build, with the clear intention of mocking her physical appearance.
The footage had been shared in the private chat via the employee's personal phone number, but the employer had become aware of it because another colleague, also a member of the group, had forwarded it to the company.
At first, the Court of Appeal of Venice had confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal, considering that the employee's behavior was seriously damaging both to the image of the store and to the dignity of the customer. However, the Supreme Court adopted a different position, pointing out that the video had been shared exclusively within a private group consisting of 15 employees and that the confidential nature of the chat expressed the desire of the subscribers to keep the conversation confidential, excluding the possibility of external disclosure.
On the basis of these elements, the Supreme Court concluded that the sharing of the video within the private chat, although questionable in content, could not constitute just cause for dismissal.
On the contrary, the violation of the secrecy of the correspondence was committed by the colleague who forwarded the video to the employer, disclosing content that should have remained confined within the small group. His action not only infringed the right to secrecy of communications between private individuals, but also caused direct damage to the employee who was later fired.
Messages, images, and videos shared within a closed group chat between employees fall under the sphere of private correspondence. As a result, when a member of the chat decides to transmit that content to external parties, such as the employer, the protection of confidentiality is lost, in violation of the rules on the protection of personal communications.
Even if the means of communication used is an instant messaging application such as WhatsApp, the principle does not change: what matters is that access to content was limited exclusively to group participants. The protection of the secrecy of correspondence, in fact, extends to any system that allows the visibility of content to be restricted to a small circle of people, as happens in private chat groups.
These principles were reiterated by the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 5334 of 28 February 2025, relating to the case of an employee of a luxury store, fired on the spot for sharing a video in chat that filmed a customer with a robust build, with the clear intention of mocking her physical appearance.
The footage had been shared in the private chat via the employee's personal phone number, but the employer had become aware of it because another colleague, also a member of the group, had forwarded it to the company.
At first, the Court of Appeal of Venice had confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal, considering that the employee's behavior was seriously damaging both to the image of the store and to the dignity of the customer. However, the Supreme Court adopted a different position, pointing out that the video had been shared exclusively within a private group consisting of 15 employees and that the confidential nature of the chat expressed the desire of the subscribers to keep the conversation confidential, excluding the possibility of external disclosure.
On the basis of these elements, the Supreme Court concluded that the sharing of the video within the private chat, although questionable in content, could not constitute just cause for dismissal.
On the contrary, the violation of the secrecy of the correspondence was committed by the colleague who forwarded the video to the employer, disclosing content that should have remained confined within the small group. His action not only infringed the right to secrecy of communications between private individuals, but also caused direct damage to the employee who was later fired.
