Court in Austria finds employment algorithm in compliance with GDPR Article 22's regulations
The Austrian Federal Administrative Court has ruled that the Public Employment Service's Labor Market Opportunities Assistance System (AMAS) does not violate the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 22 prohibitions against automated individual decision-making.
The ruling, handed down on September 1, 2025, overturned a prohibition that had been in effect since January 1, 2021. The decision carries significant implications for digital marketing professionals navigating automated decision-making restrictions, as marketing technology companies increasingly face scrutiny over algorithmic advertising targeting and customer segmentation practices.
The AMAS system processes nine data categories to calculate integration coefficients (IC values): age group, gender, country group, education, health impairment, care responsibilities, occupational group, career history, regional labor market conditions, and unemployment duration. The algorithm maps education on a three-point scale, encompassing only compulsory schooling, apprenticeships, or high school diplomas.
Employment advisors, who play substantive roles in the decision-making process, receive computer-generated "segment supplementary information" providing detailed explanations for algorithmic classifications. They are trained to recognize factors not captured by the algorithm, including motivation, housing situations, debt problems, and qualification details beyond basic education levels.
Advisors are required to document disagreements with job seekers regarding market opportunity evaluations and explain their reasoning during mandatory consultations. Each office employs ombudsmen to handle client complaints about assessment decisions.
The court found that the Public Employment Service implemented sufficient preventive and corrective measures to ensure independent human judgment. These measures include technical safeguards preventing automated overrides of human corrections and the presence of an "AMAS representative" in each regional office responsible for conducting plausibility checks when advisors question system accuracy.
The court's decision overturns a 2020 Data Protection Authority ban that had effectively shut down the controversial algorithm. The ban was imposed by the Austrian Federal Competition Authority (Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde), and the ruling distinguishes AMAS from a previous European Court of Justice Case C-634/21 involving SCHUFA credit scoring, which established that automated processing constitutes prohibited decision-making under Article 22 when it plays decisive roles in subsequent choices.
In the AMAS system, job seekers are assigned to three categories: high labor market opportunities, medium opportunities, and low opportunities. Classification into high-opportunity groups emphasizes rapid job placement, while medium-opportunity clients receive intensive support across all available services. Low-opportunity individuals in AMAS access 90-95% of support measures but are excluded from expensive specialized training programs.
The court's ruling on AMAS also addresses concerns about algorithmic bias. The Data Protection Authority's concerns about bias in AMAS were rejected by the court, as the system's design ensures that employment advisors possess real decision-making authority rather than perfunctory oversight.
In summary, the Austrian Federal Administrative Court's ruling on AMAS provides a significant precedent for the use of automated decision-making systems in employment and other sectors, demonstrating that such systems can be designed to respect individual rights and ensure the involvement of human decision-makers.
