An attack on press freedom in Austria that is unprecedented in this form. A story about political pressure, legal absurdities, and the attempt to silence the investigative outlet Fass ohne Boden.
An unprecedented case
On August 12, 2025, the editorial team of Fass ohne Boden received a letter from the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB). The tone was official, the demands harsh: Fass ohne Boden was to answer a series of questions about our journalistic work, which in our view arose not from legal grounds but from political motivation.
The Data Protection Authority demanded answers that an investigative medium is not obliged to provide. Questions that directly interfere with editorial work and thus attack journalistic independence.
What is happening here is more than just an administrative act. It is an attempt to use data protection law to put pressure on a medium that causes a stir with uncomfortable revelations.
Wording of the questionnaire
“You are requested to answer the following questions within four weeks of receiving this letter:
- On which specific legal basis is the processing of personal data founded?
- To what extent does the planned publication of personal data of the family members of the 105 Members of Parliament contribute to a debate of general public interest?
- Which information about family members is to be published?
- Which information about the 105 Members of Parliament is to be published? Only publicly available information or also information that is not publicly available? Only information relating to the professional activity of the MPs or also information relating to their private and family life with no connection to their professional activity?
- According to available information, it currently appears that only photos with children are to be blurred. Conversely, it can therefore be inferred that other information about children (e.g. age, number) is indeed to be published.”
The document ends with the following wording:
“Furthermore, the Data Protection Authority points out its powers under § 22 DSG (inspection), as well as its powers under Art. 58 GDPR. In addition, the Data Protection Authority has the possibility to summon persons whose appearance is necessary.”
This means nothing less than that the DSB claims the right to directly inspect editorial documents. A process unprecedented in Austria that crosses the line between data protection and direct interference with press freedom.
The authority’s questions
The DSB’s letter was divided into three points:
- Point I:
The authority wanted detailed information on data processing by Fass ohne Boden. Questions that media companies are not required to answer, since they fall under the media privilege. - Point II:
It criticized compliance with information obligations and cookie regulations. - Point III:
The DSB claimed that the media privilege under § 9 DSG does not apply. In other words: journalistic data processing was allegedly only protected to a limited extent.
Together, these three points form a clear pattern: an attempt to strangle Fass ohne Boden administratively. In other words: the authority threatened us with nothing less than a house search and seizure of data.
The Data Protection Authority explicitly reserves the right to inspect editorial records and data processing at Fass ohne Boden. In the extreme case, it even wants to enter our premises, start up systems, and make copies of storage media. In the case of alleged “imminent danger,” it could prohibit the continuation of our journalistic work by decree. And not only that: it also threatens fines and the personal summons of editors.
Why this is explosive
The Data Protection Authority is not a political department but an independent supervisory body. At least it should be. Yet the letter to Fass ohne Boden shows the opposite: a dangerous proximity between politics and authority.
That this letter arrived immediately after the publication of the articles „The Perverse Ambassador” and “Messenger Act: The List” at Fass ohne Boden is no coincidence. It is clear evidence of political retaliation. The message: anyone who exposes the powerful in Austria must expect repression.
This is uncharted territory. Never before has the DSB tried to attack a medium in this way using data protection law. Never before has the protective shield of press freedom been so blatantly ignored.
About the media privilege
The Austrian Data Protection Act (§ 9 DSG) is clear:
- Journalistic activities are exempt from large parts of the GDPR and the DSG.
- Media companies enjoy a media privilege that protects their editorial work.
- This privilege applies especially when dealing with public figures who are at the center of democratic scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that politicians must tolerate a higher level of criticism and reporting (e.g. OGH 6 Ob 149/01g). The Constitutional Court also emphasizes: press freedom is a core area of democracy.
The response from Fass ohne Boden
Fass ohne Boden officially responded to the Data Protection Authority on September 6, 2025. The response is not only a legal clarification but also a sharp reckoning with an attempt at intimidation.
Below is the full wording of the response:
„File number: D213.3452 / 2025-0.564.706
Subject: Statement regarding the letter of August 1, 2025
Dear Sir or Madam,
With reference to your letter of August 1, 2025, the editorial team of Fass ohne Boden submits the following statement:
Regarding Point I)
Pursuant to § 9 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Fass ohne Boden Presseagentur e.U. (Fass ohne Boden) as a media company within the meaning of the Media Act, Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981, is expressly privileged. The exemptions provided there also cover the questions you have raised.
According to § 9 DSG, journalistic activities are exempt from essential parts of the GDPR and the DSG insofar as the processing of personal data is necessary for the exercise of this activity. This so-called media privilege expressly protects the editorial work of media companies in their role as watchdogs.
Members of the National Council are public figures whose activities are of particular interest to the general public. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that persons with a political mandate must tolerate a higher threshold of criticism and reporting (cf. OGH 6 Ob 149/01g). The Constitutional Court also emphasizes in consistent case law that the monitoring of the political class through media reporting constitutes a core area of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press (Art. 13 StGG, Art. 10 ECHR).
The journalistic processing of information about Members of Parliament — such as curriculum vitae, income, association and network memberships — is therefore not only permissible but indispensable for democratic oversight. § 9 DSG makes it clear that this form of data processing falls under the media privilege as long as there is a connection with journalistic activity.
We therefore point out that Fass ohne Boden — as an investigative medium and media hub — is not obliged to respond to the questions raised under Point I). The attempt to nevertheless demand answers is regarded by our editorial office as an intimidation attempt, evidently launched from the political sphere.
Such an attempt to exert pressure on an independent media company through data protection law is unprecedented in Austria. It raises serious doubts about the independence of the Data Protection Authority itself. It may be taken for granted that the Data Protection Authority is familiar with the provisions of the DSG.
The temporal connection of your letter with the publication of the article “The Perverted Ambassador” (https://www.fassohneboden.at/der-perverse-botschafter) concerning the sadomasochistic ambassador is evident and raises the question whether political motivation is in fact the underlying reason for your actions.
Regarding Point II)
The information obligations and the use of cookies have since been reviewed and are now compliant with data protection requirements and in line with the provisions of the DSG.
Available at: https://www.fassohneboden.at/cookie-richtlinie-eu/ and https://www.fassohneboden.at/datenschutz/.
Regarding Point III)
Here as well, § 9 DSG is applicable. As a media company, Fass ohne Boden is privileged insofar as data processing is necessary for the exercise of journalistic activity. The assertion that, despite the media privilege, all provisions of data protection law would apply in full lacks any legal basis.
We therefore maintain that the questions under Point I) are not to be addressed to us. Any attempt to compel us otherwise is to be considered an impermissible interference with press freedom and with the constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
Final remark:
Fass ohne Boden will continue to carry out its work as an independent investigative medium and will not be intimidated by attempts at coercion — whether politically or administratively motivated.
Sincerely,
Alexander Surowiec
Fass ohne Boden Presseagentur e.U. (Fass ohne Boden)
A precedent
This case goes far beyond Fass ohne Boden. If the DSB succeeds with such methods, it means:
- Any investigative medium could be targeted tomorrow.
- Data protection law is being abused as a weapon against press freedom.
- Authorities are becoming tools of political interests.
This is no longer an administrative act. This is a threat to democracy.
Conclusion and Prospects
The attack by the Data Protection Authority is not just a legal farce but an assault on the core values of the republic.
Fass ohne Boden will not be intimidated. We will continue to investigate, continue to expose, and continue to publish.
Press freedom is not an empty phrase. It is the foundation of our democracy. And every attack on it strikes at the very roots of society as a whole.
Our editorial computers are, incidentally, specially secured. Anyone who believes that threats or inspection powers can paralyze our work is seriously mistaken. And yes, forgive the sarcastic reference here to the “Sina laptop affair.” Our editorial computers are safe from third-party access.
Source: Fass ohne Boden
