Author: Dr. Axel Spies
As AI systems proliferate across business operations, employers face a growing but often overlooked compliance risk: employees feeding personal data into AI tools, potentially in violation of internal policies or applicable data protection laws. This unwanted scenario—sometimes deliberate, often inadvertent—can expose companies to liability under both European and U.S. data privacy regimes and underscores the urgent need for robust AI governance, staff training, and incident response plans.
How Violations Occur
Even companies with comprehensive AI policies cannot assume perfect compliance. The temptation for employees to use the employer’s or their own AI tools for convenience or problem-solving remains high. Typical breaches may include recording internal meetings and uploading transcripts to AI tools for summarization, translating texts that contain personal data to unsafe AI systems, generating AI-assisted email replies containing sensitive information, or using AI for hiring, performance reviews, or scheduling without authorization or compliance with the ever-expanding scope of applicable laws. These actions can amount to unlawful processing of personal data—particularly under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—and may violate U.S. privacy laws, U.S. state AI transparency requirements and/or contractual confidentiality obligations.
First Response: establishing the facts
When such a case comes to light, the employer must first determine what exactly happened: which data sets were uploaded, to what system, under whose account, and when. The investigation becomes complicated if the employee used a personal, unauthorized (“shadow AI”) account. In those cases, the employer may have no legal right to access chat logs or account content, like limits on employer access to private email accounts under European law and some U.S. state laws. Even where a corporate AI tool was used, the employer must still assess whether the upload introduced personal data into a system that reuses inputs for model training or storage. This factual inquiry determines the scope of exposure under both data protection rules and internal discipline procedures.
Legal Implications Under EU Data Protection Law
There are tight deadlines for the reporting of an incident involving personal data under Art. 33 and 34 GDPR and other data breach laws. After some debate, European regulators now seem to agree the uploading of personal data into AI systems as a form of data processing subject to the GDPR. If that upload is deemed a reportable data breach, the organization (as controller) must report the incident to the supervisory authority without undue delay and in most cases within 72 hours of discovery. Processors must report the breach to the relevant Controller(s).
The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has clarified that an employer cannot evade liability by blaming a negligent or non-compliant employee. Companies are expected to ensure that staff follow data protection instructions and are properly trained in AI use. A simple claim that “the employee acted independently” will not suffice to avoid responsibility. Whether notification to authorities is required depends on the risk to affected individuals. Under Article 33 GDPR, no notification is needed if the breach is unlikely to result in risk to rights and freedoms. But assessing that risk is difficult in the AI context, since generative models do not store data in a conventional database structure. Ongoing debates address how long personal references persist in model outputs and how “identifiable” individuals remain after training.
When a whistleblower reports that personal data sets have been illegally uploaded to an AI system, the company must ensure robust protection against retaliation and preserve confidentiality throughout the process. Under both EU and U.S. frameworks, retaliation against employees who report a data breach or compliance violations is prohibited. The whistleblower’s identity should be disclosed only to those strictly necessary for investigating the matter, and secure internal reporting channels should be in place to prevent leaks or informal reprisals.
Employers should also provide reassurance that good-faith disclosures - whether made internally or to regulators - will not result in disciplinary measures, even if the underlying suspicion later proves unfounded. In the European Union, the Whistleblower Protection Directive requires organizations with 50 or more employees to establish confidential reporting procedures and follow-up protocols. In the United States, protection may arise under federal or state whistleblower laws and increasingly under state privacy acts and AI transparency laws that incorporate anti-retaliation clauses. It is thus advisable to integrate AI-related data incidents into existing whistleblower and ethics policies, ensuring that employees understand they can safely report suspected privacy or data misuse violations without fear of adverse consequences and know what do to.
U.S. Perspective: parallel challenges, different legal framework
In the United States, no federal law directly mirrors the GDPR, but similar issues arise under a patchwork of state privacy statutes, sectoral regulations, and contractual duties. Such uploads can violate confidentiality agreements, internal data-handling rules, or state privacy statutes that classify employee data as personal information.
Employers are advised to take immediate remedial action once an unauthorized upload is detected. The first step is to assess what data was disclosed, whether it constitutes personal information, and which jurisdictions’ laws apply. Legal teams should determine whether the disclosure triggers US state or federal breach notification obligations. Internal investigations should then focus on containment—ensuring that no further dissemination of the data or uploading occurs within the AI system or through third parties.
Employers should update internal AI use policies and employee handbooks to clearly prohibit uploading personal or confidential business data into AI tools without authorization. Employees should receive targeted training on proper AI use, emphasizing both privacy risks and intellectual property concerns. When third-party AI providers are involved, companies should review contractual terms to ensure adequate data protection, confidentiality, and indemnification clauses.
From a compliance standpoint, every step of the incident response should be documented. Employers should identify the system involved, preserve relevant evidence, notify affected individuals if legally required, and report to regulators where applicable. Coordination between legal (internal and external counsel), HR, and IT departments is critical to ensure consistent responses and effective communication channels. A helpful tool may be establishing escalation protocols so that potential AI-related data incidents can be quickly evaluated and contained.
Ultimately, the U.S. approach mirrors the European one in its emphasis on proactive governance. A combination of clear internal policies, employee awareness programs, and contractual safeguards with AI vendors provides the strongest protection against legal exposure resulting from employee misuse of AI systems.
“Machine Unlearning” Still Difficult
“Machine unlearning” refers to emerging techniques that aim to remove or neutralize specific data points from an already trained AI model without the need to retrain it from scratch. The goal is to “forget” personal or sensitive information that was improperly used during training, restoring compliance with data protection rules such as the GDPR’s right to erasure or “to be forgotten."
Despite promising progress, machine unlearning is still technically complex and not yet reliable for large-scale generative AI systems. Fully removing a data point’s influence is difficult because training data can indirectly shape multiple model parameters and outputs. In most commercial systems, unlearning remains approximate: the model may cease to reproduce specific inputs verbatim but still retain abstract representations or patterns derived from them. As a result, regulators and experts view machine unlearning as a potential supplement—but not yet a substitute—for strict data minimization, vendor controls, and prompt deletion of input data before it enters the model’s training corpus.
European bodies, such as the European Data Protection Board and the German Data Protection Conference, have only begun exploring “machine unlearning” techniques to remove personal data from models. Yet these tools remain currently experimental, and effective implementation may require redesigning entire AI pipelines. In practice, companies often can only request that vendors delete input data or exclude it from future training—an option now offered by some major AI providers.
Managing Compliance Across Jurisdictions
Across both the EU and the U.S., employers are expected to take reasonable steps to prevent and respond to employee misuse of AI tools. This includes adopting clear AI governance policies that specify which systems may be used, under what conditions, and with what data. Policies should prohibit uploading personal or confidential information into external AI tools unless explicitly authorized, and should outline approval, oversight, and escalation procedures. The absence of such policies is increasingly viewed by regulators as a major compliance gap.
Training and awareness programs remain a cornerstone of prevention. Employees must understand how generative AI tools handle data, what constitutes personal information, and why uploading such data can violate privacy laws or company policy. They should also know how to respond if they make a mistake—whom to contact, what to report, and how to minimize damage. Monitoring and periodic audits can help detect policy violations or emerging risks. In the U.S., these activities align with workplace compliance best practices, while in Europe they satisfy GDPR accountability requirements.
When a data upload occurs, the employer should treat it as a potential data incident. The process should include a prompt investigation of the facts, an assessment of the risks to individuals, and—where required—notification of regulators or affected persons. Mitigation measures may include requesting data deletion or exclusion from AI model training, along with comprehensive documentation of every decision and corrective action.
As to third parties, before deploying AI tools, businesses should perform due diligence on vendors’ data practices. Contracts should specify how user inputs are retained, shared, or used for training, and should provide rights to deletion or “opt-out” from model updates. In regulated sectors or cross-border contexts, these clauses are critical for compliance with both the GDPR and U.S. state privacy laws.
Looking Ahead
Neither European nor U.S. regulators have yet provided definitive guidance on how to treat personal data uploaded into generative AI systems. Concepts like “machine unlearning” remain experimental, and technical standards for AI transparency and data deletion are still developing. Nonetheless, the direction is clear: organizations must take proactive responsibility for AI governance, employee training, and breach readiness. The broader lesson is that AI risk management is not only a technological issue but also a matter of corporate culture and accountability. For U.S. businesses, borrowing elements from the European approach—structured investigation, detailed documentation, whistleblower protection and a clear chain of accountability—offers a practical roadmap for managing this new class of privacy incidents.
Practical Takeaways
-
Anticipate misuse. Assume that at least some employees or vendors will use generative AI informally. Integrate this reality into policy, training, and technical controls.
-
Map data flows. Identify where employee or customer data could enter AI tools and how those tools handle retention and training.
-
Coordinate privacy and employment law compliance. Align AI governance with existing HR, cybersecurity, and privacy/whistleblower policies to avoid conflicting policies and make sure that everyone is aware of what to do and whom to contact.
-
Respond rapidly and transparently. If a data upload occurs, move quickly to contain, document, and - if necessary - disclose it to the relevant regulators (or document why you decide not to report the incidence). Transparency reduces reputational damage and may mitigate liability.
-
Align global compliance. For multinational employers, harmonize GDPR-style safeguards with U.S. privacy, disclosure and employment obligations.
