Stay ahead in a rapidly changing world
Our monthly insights for strategic business perspectives.
Founders, COOs, Heads of People, and Operations Managers at SMEs with 10β200 employees hiring remote staff in or from the US, UK, Australia, Canada, India, or Europe.
For COOs, HR leaders, and operations teams scaling international remote teams, this is not a legal technicality. It is a practical risk with real consequences: regulatory fines, candidate trust erosion, and contractual liability with staffing partners.
This guide gives you a clear, decision-ready framework for GDPR compliance in remote hiring β covering what applies to your situation, what you must put in place, and where most employers get it wrong.
GDPR compliance for remote hiring is the legal obligation to process job candidate personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 β at every stage of the recruitment lifecycle, regardless of where your company is headquartered.
In practice, this means any data you collect from a candidate β CV, interview notes, assessment results, identity documents, background check reports, or email exchanges β must be handled lawfully, transparently, and with clearly defined retention limits.
The complexity for remote hiring lies in GDPR's extraterritorial reach (Article 3). The regulation extends to any organisation that targets or employs individuals in the EU/EEA, irrespective of the employer's location. That is the clause that catches most non-EU employers off guard.
For companies in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and the Middle East, non-compliance is not a theoretical risk. GDPR enforcement against non-EU employers is active and growing. Data-conscious senior candidates β especially in Europe β notice when employers handle their information carelessly. It affects your ability to attract top talent.
The answer depends on your candidate pool, your systems, and your hiring model. Here is how to assess your exposure by scenario:
Default to treating GDPR as your baseline compliance standard for all international hiring. Use the compliance checklist as your starting audit regardless of geography.
Every act of processing candidate data must be justified by a lawful basis under GDPR Article 6. In recruitment, the two most relevant bases are legitimate interest and consent. Most employers get this wrong β and that mistake creates operational risk throughout the process.
Legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f)) allows you to process candidate data without explicit consent when you have a genuine, documented business reason, the processing is necessary, and it does not override the candidate's fundamental rights.
This applies to:
To rely on legitimate interest, document a Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA) β a short internal record confirming the business purpose, necessity, and balanced consideration of candidate rights. This is item 2 in your compliance checklist.
Consent under GDPR must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. No pre-ticked boxes. No bundled agreements. No implied acceptance.
Consent is appropriate only for:
Many employers use consent as their default lawful basis for all recruitment data. This is incorrect and operationally risky. If a candidate withdraws consent mid-process, you may be obligated to stop evaluation entirely. Legitimate interest is almost always the stronger basis for core recruitment activities. This is mistake #1 in the 8 most common errors.
GDPR's data minimisation principle is clear: collect only what is adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary for the recruitment purpose. Anything beyond that must be disclosed in your candidate privacy notice.
GDPR Article 9 imposes stricter obligations on health/disability status, racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and criminal conviction records. Only collect this data when there is a clear, documented legal basis. If in doubt, rely on the lawful basis guidance above.
A recruitment-specific candidate privacy notice is a legal requirement under GDPR Articles 13 and 14. It must be provided at the point of data collection β on your application form or careers page. A general website privacy policy does not satisfy this obligation.
Your notice must include:
Use a layered notice. Place a short, plain-language summary on the application page with a clearly labelled link to the full notice. Drafting and publishing this notice is item 3 in the compliance checklist.
GDPR does not set a fixed retention period. The storage limitation principle (Article 5(1)(e)) requires data be kept no longer than necessary. Most Data Protection Authorities consider 6 to 12 months reasonable for unsuccessful candidates. Talent pool retention requires separate consent and a documented renewal process.
| Data Type | Recommended Retention | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Unsolicited CVs (no active role) | Immediate deletion / max 30 days | No active purpose to justify retention |
| Unsuccessful applicants (applied for a role) | 6β12 months post-decision | Allows for appeals; aligns with ICO guidance |
| Interview notes & assessments | 6β12 months post-decision | Retain for equal opportunity defence if needed |
| Talent pool (consented) | 12β24 months (consent duration) | Must renew consent; document re-confirmation |
| Successful hire β pre-employment records | Employment + statutory period | Becomes part of the employment file |
| Background check results | Record check completed only | Sensitive β see special category data rules |
Configure automated deletion schedules in your ATS β governed by a Data Processing Agreement with the provider. Greenhouse, Lever, and Workable all support retention settings. Relying on manual deletion is mistake #3 in the most common GDPR errors.
Yes β with prior informed consent from the candidate. The consent must be given before the recording begins, not collected mid-session. This is distinct from the legitimate interest basis used for the interview itself.
AI interview analysis tools that score candidates on tone, facial expression, or speech patterns trigger GDPR Article 22 on automated decision-making. You must inform candidates, ensure human oversight, and obtain explicit consent. Failing to disclose this is mistake #5 in the 8 most common errors.
When EU/EEA candidate data moves outside the EEA β to the US, Australia, India, or Canada β GDPR Chapter V safeguards are required. For most SMEs, the primary mechanism is Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs). Any staffing agency handling this data also requires a signed Data Processing Agreement.
Post-Schrems II (2020), signing SCCs alone is not enough. You must also complete a Transfer Impact Assessment (TIA) to evaluate whether the receiving country's surveillance laws undermine SCCs. This is step 8 in the compliance checklist.
| Scenario | Mechanism Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| EU employer using US-hosted ATS | SCCs or DPF certification | Verify ATS provider's Data Privacy Framework status; DPA required |
| US employer, EU candidate data in US | SCCs recommended | US employer is data controller; SCCs govern the transfer |
| UK employer β Indian staffing agency | UK IDTA + DPA with agency | Both UK GDPR and EU GDPR may apply simultaneously |
| Australian employer with EU candidates | SCCs | Australia has no EU adequacy decision; see Australia regional notes |
| Staffing agency in India/Philippines | DPA + SCCs if EU data involved | Agency is a data processor; written DPA is mandatory under Article 28 |
GDPR Article 28 mandates a written DPA with every third party that processes personal data on your behalf. In remote hiring, this includes recruitment agencies, ATS platforms, background check services, video interview tools, and any HR system touching candidate data.
A valid DPA must specify:
Most SMEs sign agency or recruiter contracts that contain nothing about data protection. Before sharing any candidate CV with a third-party recruiter or staffing provider, verify that a DPA is in place. If the provider cannot produce one, do not share candidate data with them. This is the most prevalent structural gap in the hiring model risk comparison.
Different hiring models carry different compliance complexities. Understanding your model's risk profile helps you build the right infrastructure from the start β and informs how thoroughly to apply the compliance checklist.
| Hiring Model | GDPR Risk | Key Requirements | Common Failure Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct hire (in-house) | Moderate | Privacy notice, lawful basis, retention schedule, ATS DPA | No formal privacy notice; no deletion schedule |
| Recruitment agency (contingency) | ModerateβHigh | DPA with agency, defined data handling instructions | No DPA; agency distributes CVs without authorisation |
| Remote staffing provider / EOR | High | DPA, SCCs, sub-processor review, onboarding data protocols | Multi-jurisdiction gaps; no sub-processor audit |
| Freelancer platforms (Upwork, Toptal) | Lower | Platform DPA; limited additional obligations | Downloading candidate data to non-compliant systems |
| Internal talent pool / community | High | Explicit consent, renewal schedules, easy withdrawal | Consent expires without renewal; data never deleted |
When you engage a dedicated remote staffing provider, data flows through multiple parties. A provider that proactively maintains DPAs with its sub-processors, operates documented data handling procedures, and can demonstrate compliance on request significantly reduces your exposure as the data controller.
GDPR sets the global benchmark. Each major hiring region layers its own framework on top of it.
No federal GDPR equivalent, but California's CPRA/CCPA creates meaningful obligations. US companies hiring EU-resident candidates are directly subject to GDPR and should designate an EU representative under Article 27 if they lack an EU establishment.
UK GDPR mirrors EU GDPR with post-Brexit amendments. The ICO is the supervisory authority. UK companies hiring EU-resident candidates must comply with both simultaneously. International transfers from the UK use the IDTA rather than EU SCCs.
The Privacy Act 1988 applies to businesses above AU$3M turnover. Australia has no EU adequacy decision β SCCs are required for EU-to-Australia transfers. The Privacy Act is undergoing significant reform; monitor for updates through 2026.
PIPEDA governs private sector data federally. Quebec's Law 25 (2023) introduced GDPR-level requirements. Canada holds an EU adequacy decision, simplifying EU-to-Canada transfer requirements. Canadian employers still need GDPR compliance for EU candidate data.
Yes. GDPR applies to any organisation processing personal data of EU-resident individuals β regardless of where the organisation is headquartered. See the full applicability breakdown for your specific scenario.
For active recruitment β reviewing applications, interviewing, making hiring decisions β the correct basis is legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f). Consent is appropriate only for talent pools or special category data.
Most Data Protection Authorities consider 6 to 12 months reasonable for unsuccessful applicants. Unsolicited CVs should be deleted within 30 days unless the candidate has consented to retention. See the full retention framework table.
Yes β mandatory under GDPR Article 28. Any third party processing candidate personal data on your behalf must have a signed DPA before any data is shared. Review the full DPA requirements and check your hiring model's risk profile.
SCCs are the most widely used mechanism for transfers from the EU to non-adequate countries. However, post-Schrems II, SCCs must be accompanied by a Transfer Impact Assessment (TIA). See the cross-border transfer scenarios table.
Candidates hold rights to access, rectification, erasure, restriction, and objection. You must respond within one calendar month, extendable by two further months for complex cases. Managing these requests is step 9 in the compliance checklist.
Subject to GDPR Article 22 on solely automated decision-making. If your AI tool makes or materially influences a hiring outcome without human review, you must inform candidates and ensure explainability. Biometric or behavioural scoring constitutes special category data and requires explicit consent.
Yes. GDPR does not distinguish between employment types. Collecting a contractor's name, contact details, portfolio, and right-to-work documentation is personal data processing carrying the same obligations: lawful basis, privacy notice, data minimisation, retention limits, and transfer safeguards.
Immediate priorities: a recruitment-specific candidate privacy notice and a DPA template for agencies. Use an ATS with GDPR controls built in (Workable or Recruitee). Set a 6-month retention policy for unsuccessful candidates. This delivers 80% of compliance coverage with 20% of the effort.
Audit your ATS sub-processors per your DPA obligations, implement SCCs for non-EEA data flows, and complete TIAs for primary transfer relationships. Assign a dedicated data subject rights owner (step 9 in the checklist). Review all recruitment agency contracts and insert DPAs where missing.
You need a structured GDPR programme, not individual controls. Appoint a DPO or engage an external DPO-as-a-service provider. Maintain a ROPA document covering all hiring models in use. Conduct annual DPIAs for high-risk processing. At this scale, GDPR compliance is a trust asset and competitive differentiator.
Zedtreeo handles the infrastructure of remote staffing β including documented data handling, signed DPAs, and compliant sourcing processes β so you can focus on running your business.
Talk to Our TeamLast updated February 2026. General informational purposes only. Not legal advice β consult a qualified data protection professional for your specific circumstances.
Our monthly insights for strategic business perspectives.