Dashcams are spreading in fleets because experience shows that in a significant proportion of disputed claims, the two drivers tell two different stories, both fill in the accident report form in their own favour, and there are no witnesses. In such cases, a thirty-second recording is worth more than any written report. As a broker, I see that companies buy dashcams as a tool for loss prevention and claims settlement but leave the data protection side to the driver – yet in a company car, the data controller is not the driver but the company, and according to press articles published at the end of 2025, most of the trouble arises not from making recordings but from publishing them. This article looks at both sides together: what the camera contributes in a claim, and what needs to be put in order so that the footage does not turn against the company.
- In claims where liability is disputed – conflicting accident report forms, hit-and-run, a minor bump while reversing – dashcam footage is real evidence that insurers typically take into account in claims settlement; liability, however, is decided by the insurer and ultimately by the courts.
- In a company car, the company is the controller of the camera data: the legal basis under the GDPR (legitimate interest) requires a documented balancing-of-interests test, and according to the 2020 opinion of the NAIH (the Hungarian data protection authority), continuous recording of traffic and passers-by is not proportionate – event-triggered recording, short retention and strict access are the way forward.
- Under Section 11/A of the Mt. (the Hungarian Labour Code), the employee must be informed in advance and in writing about any device capable of monitoring the driver; a camera facing into the cabin and audio recording are a separate question that is harder to justify, and publishing the footage is off-limits.
What is the footage worth in claims settlement?
In a claim under compulsory motor third-party liability insurance (kgfb / MTPL), the injured party has to prove that the damage was caused by the operation of the other vehicle, and disputed cases – two cars changing lanes at the same moment, roundabouts, two cars reversing in a car park – often end in a “fifty-fifty” split or a rejection for lack of evidence. In this situation, dashcam footage records the facts: speed, use of indicators, the other party's movements, the number plate. Insurers typically take the footage into account as evidence in claims settlement; in a hit-and-run, it also provides the identification for the police report; and under the company's own casco (comprehensive motor insurance), the footage can also clarify whether the driver was blameless – which matters both for the loss ratio and for the internal settlement with the employee. The footage is not a verdict, however: liability is decided by the insurer and, in a dispute, by the court – and the footage shows your own driver's mistakes just as clearly. Saving the footage is also one of the things to do at the scene – the accident-scene checklist can be supplemented with the instruction that, after an accident, the driver should not let the camera's memory card be overwritten.
In a company car, the company is the controller
Even in a private car, with footage made for personal purposes and used only in the event of an accident, it is questionable whether the personal (household) exemption can apply, because the camera records other people in public spaces; in a company fleet, this exemption cannot apply, because the camera is operated as part of the company's business activities. The company is therefore a controller under the GDPR and has to find a legal basis: in practice, this is legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR – proving claims, protecting assets – which requires a prior balancing-of-interests test recorded in writing. In its opinion no. NAIH/2020/4103, issued on 16 September 2020 in response to a question from a fuel transport company, the NAIH (the Hungarian data protection authority), referring to EDPB Guidelines 3/2019, stated that a dashcam should not continuously record either the traffic or people by the roadside, because the interest in collecting accident evidence does not justify such a degree of interference with the rights of the data subjects; recordings may not be retained indefinitely, and retention must be limited to the time strictly necessary. The opinion is consultative in nature and is not legislation, but it shows how the authority thinks: a camera system that records continuously and stores footage for weeks is hard to defend in a company fleet, whereas an event-triggered setting – one that starts recording on a collision sensor or sudden braking, overwrites in a short loop and deletes footage within days if there is no accident – is compatible with the principles of necessity and proportionality. The images of the data subjects – the other driver, passers-by – are also protected by the personality rights rules of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.): the footage may be used for the purposes of the claim and of official proceedings, but may not be shared on social media or as an internal “deterrent” video. Professional articles from November 2025 emphasise exactly this: there is no separate dashcam law; the framework is set by the GDPR, the Info Act (Hungary's act on informational self-determination and freedom of information) and NAIH practice, and most of the trouble comes from publication.
Towards the driver: information, not covert surveillance
On the employee side, the yardstick is the Mt. (the Hungarian Labour Code). Under Section 9(2), an employee's personality rights may be restricted if the restriction is strictly necessary for a reason directly related to the purpose of the employment and is proportionate to the aim pursued, and the employee must be informed in advance and in writing of the manner, conditions and expected duration of the restriction, as well as of the circumstances supporting its necessity and proportionality; under Section 11/A(1), the employee may be monitored with regard to their conduct related to the employment, and the employer may also use a technical device for this, of which it must give prior written notice. Private life may not be monitored: if private use of the company car is permitted, the camera must stay off during that use, or the vehicle use policy must deal with this situation separately. A forward-facing camera pointed at the road can typically be justified by the purpose of handling claims; a camera facing into the cabin that records the driver's face, and audio recording, already amount to direct surveillance of the driver, which requires a much stronger justification and a separate balancing-of-interests test, while for assessing driving style, telematics is the less intrusive tool – see the article on telematics. A camera that a driver installs in the company car on their own initiative does not solve the problem but shifts it onto the company: the vehicle use policy should state that only devices and settings approved by the company may be used.
Footage at the insurer, the police and in court
The footage can be attached to the claim notification via the insurer's claims line or fleet portal; it is worth keeping the original file unaltered, storing it until the claim is closed – in the event of a dispute, until the end of the legal dispute – and then deleting it. The footage can be handed over to the police in the proceedings, and in court it is a means of evidence; according to case law quoted in the press, the court weighs up whether using the footage would cause disproportionate harm, and in certain cases it may also take into account footage that was not recorded lawfully – but the company should not build on this; it should rely on the footage being recorded lawfully in the first place. Where the footage comes in useful in a claim, and where litigation begins, is outlined in the article on traffic disputes; and for unexplained dents on cars shared by several drivers, the solution is not the camera but the handover photo routine – see the article on the photo routine.
What should you do in practice?
Draw up a short written framework before the first camera is installed: purpose (proving claims), legal basis and balancing-of-interests test, event-triggered recording and overwriting, retention period, who has access, to whom footage may be handed over, prohibited uses (publication, disciplinary “evidence” during private use). Give drivers prior written information and have them sign it together with the vehicle use policy; a device mounted on the windscreen must not obstruct the view. On the claims side, the camera does not replace the accident report form and photos but complements them; the primary route for reporting a claim remains the insurer's claims line. As a broker, I help where I can; it is worth having the data protection documentation and the balancing-of-interests test prepared by a data protection specialist or a lawyer. The insurer pays only for what is an insured event under your contract; the camera “only” helps to keep the facts from being disputed.
Have a question specific to dashcams in your own fleet's claims procedure? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
Sources
- NAIH/2020/4103. – opinion of the NAIH (Hungarian data protection authority) on data processing by dashcams installed in vehicles (16 September 2020)
- Mt. – Act I of 2012 (Hungarian Labour Code), Section 9(2) and Section 11/A (restriction of the employee's personality rights, monitoring) (njt.hu)
- GDPR – Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 6(1)(f) (legitimate interest), Article 13 (information to be provided) (EUR-Lex)
- Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.) – Act V of 2013, personality rights (right to one's image) (njt.hu)
- economx.hu – Drivers, take note: this device could land you in serious trouble (22 November 2025; on the legal framework for dashcams and publishing footage)
