Dutch Employee Wins €75,000 Compensation After Being Fired for Refusing Webcam Monitoring

A Dutch employee working for the US‑based company Chetu was dismissed after refusing to keep his webcam on during remote work, which the employer demanded as part of a "Corrective Action Program" requiring continuous screen sharing and camera activation.

The employee sued, arguing that the company had no urgent justification for immediate termination and that the webcam requirement breached data‑privacy rules.

The court found the dismissal contract invalid, ordering Chetu to pay the employee €75,000 in compensation (about ¥520,000), including unpaid wages, illegal‑dismissal compensation, transition benefits, and additional damages, and declared the non‑compete and confidentiality clauses void.

The ruling cited the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 and a European Court decision, emphasizing that mandatory webcam activation constitutes an unreasonable intrusion on privacy.

The case sparked discussion on Reddit, with users questioning the legitimacy of constant camera monitoring and suggesting that such practices reflect poor management.

Beyond this specific case, the article notes a surge in demand for remote‑monitoring software during the pandemic, with tools like Hubstaff, Time Doctor, and FlexiSPY offering screen, keystroke, and even camera tracking capabilities, raising further privacy concerns.

Microsoft’s earlier "Productivity Score" also faced backlash for privacy violations, leading to feature removals.

In China, similar intrusive monitoring practices have emerged, with companies demanding continuous webcam use, frequent check‑ins, and rapid response times, prompting widespread debate about the legality and ethics of such surveillance.

The article concludes by asking readers whether employers have the right to monitor employees’ screens or cameras during remote work and provides several reference links to related news reports.