The Netherlands is more permissive than most of its neighbours on the criminal side: a participant in a conversation may generally record it. Article 139a of the Dutch Criminal Code prohibits recording a conversation with a device when you are not taking part in it — which means that as a participant, you fall outside the prohibition.
That is a genuine difference from Germany, where all-party consent is required. But it does not mean you can record Dutch booth conversations silently, because the AVG obligations are entirely separate and they still apply.
Not legal advice. This is a practical summary for sales teams. Dutch privacy law involves criminal, civil and data-protection strands. Have your DPO or counsel review your process before an event.
Article 139a Sr: the criminal position
Article 139a of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr) makes it an offence to intentionally record a conversation using a technical device where the recorder is not a participant in that conversation, in a dwelling or other private setting.
The operative words are "waaraan hij niet deelneemt" — "in which he does not participate." A sales rep talking to a prospect at their own booth is unambiguously a participant.
Article 139b covers recording in other places, and Article 139c covers interception of telecommunications. The consistent thread is that Dutch criminal law targets eavesdropping on other people's conversations, not recording your own.
So on the criminal question, the Netherlands sits with the UK and much of the US: one-party consent is generally sufficient.
Why that is not the end of the analysis
Here is where teams get it wrong. "It is not a crime" and "it is lawful" are different statements.
Recording a conversation with an identifiable prospect means processing their personal data — their voice, their name, their employer, what they said about their budget. That is squarely within the AVG (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming), the Dutch name for GDPR, supervised by the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP).
The AVG requires, regardless of what the criminal code says:
- A lawful basis under Article 6
- Transparency at the moment of collection under Articles 13–14
- Data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c)
- A defined retention period
- Respect for data subject rights — access, erasure, portability, objection
None of that is switched off by being a participant in the conversation.
Choosing a lawful basis
Two realistic options.
Consent — Article 6(1)(a). Clean, easy to explain, easy to evidence if you log it. The downside is it can be withdrawn, and withdrawal must be as easy as giving it.
Legitimate interests — Article 6(1)(f). Theoretically available for B2B contexts, and the Netherlands has a pragmatic business culture. But the AP has taken a notably strict line on legitimate interests — it has argued that purely commercial interests do not automatically qualify. For audio recording of an identifiable individual who would reasonably expect to be asked, a legitimate-interests assessment is a hard document to write convincingly.
Practical recommendation: use consent. Ask the question. It takes four seconds and removes the argument entirely.
What to say at a Dutch booth
Dutch business audiences are direct and generally comfortable with a straightforward request. In Dutch:
"Ik neem ons gesprek op zodat mijn aantekeningen kloppen — vindt u dat goed?" ("I am recording our conversation so my notes are accurate — is that alright with you?")
Most Dutch trade show attendees speak excellent English, but asking in Dutch signals that you have thought about it.
Then:
- Wait for an explicit ja
- Keep the recording indicator visible
- Log that consent was given, with a timestamp
- Stop immediately if anyone objects or joins and objects
Minimisation is the strongest control
Article 5(1)(c) AVG requires data to be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary. The AP takes this seriously.
For booth recording the implication is direct: if the purpose is capturing an accurate lead, that purpose is complete once name, company, requirement and next step are in the CRM. Retaining the raw audio beyond that point serves no stated purpose and is difficult to defend.
Designing for extract-then-delete gives you a smaller breach surface, a shorter retention obligation, and a much easier conversation if the AP ever asks. This is how Confee is built: the conversation becomes structured CRM fields, and the raw recording does not need to be kept.
Dutch booth checklist
Before the show
- Privacy statement available in Dutch and English via QR code
- Lawful basis decided and documented — consent recommended
- Retention period defined
- Register of processing activities updated (Article 30)
Per conversation
- Ask before recording starts
- Wait for an explicit yes
- Recording indicator visible
- Log the consent
- Stop on any objection
After the show
- Delete raw audio once fields are extracted
- Handle any rights request within one month
The short version
Dutch criminal law gives you more room than German law: as a participant, Article 139a Sr does not prohibit you from recording. But the AVG applies in full, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens enforces it actively, and covert recording of prospects would be very hard to defend.
The practical answer is the same as everywhere else in Europe — ask, get a yes, keep it visible, log it, delete the audio. In the Netherlands that process is comfortably above the legal floor rather than scraping it.
Related reading:
- Is Recording Sales Conversations Legal? — the cross-jurisdiction overview
- Recording Consent at German Trade Shows — the strictest EU regime, for contrast
- GDPR-Compliant Lead Capture — the data-protection side in full
FAQ
Is it legal to record a conversation you are part of in the Netherlands?
Under Dutch criminal law, generally yes. Article 139a Sr prohibits recording a conversation you are not a participant in. As a participant, the criminal prohibition does not apply, making the Netherlands a one-party consent jurisdiction — unlike Germany.
Does that mean you can record trade show conversations without telling anyone?
No. Criminal law and data protection are separate. Recording an identifiable person is processing personal data under the AVG. You still need a lawful basis and must provide transparency information, and covert recording of prospects is very hard to justify.
Who enforces data protection in the Netherlands?
The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP), enforcing the AVG together with the Uitvoeringswet AVG. It can impose fines up to €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover.
What is the practical rule for a Dutch booth?
Ask before recording, get an explicit yes, keep the indicator visible, log the consent, and delete raw audio once lead fields are extracted. That satisfies the AVG and puts the criminal question beyond doubt.