Instead, he was sent a link which allowed access to 1,700 audio files from another Alexa user he had no association with.
Using the information they gathered from the recordings, the magazine contacted the victim of the data leak.
"This was an unfortunate case of human error and an isolated incident".
Amazon said it has "resolved the problem with the two affected customers and taken measures to further improve our procedures".
"We were also in touch on a precautionary basis with the relevant regulatory authorities", the company added.
C't magazine listened to numerous files and was able "to piece together a detailed picture of the customer concerned and his personal habits". As per the report, the recordings consists of conversations between a male and female.
The Alexa app, which is used as a companion to the voice assistant housed in Amazon Echo smart speakers, keeps a log of interactions between users and the assistant, which can be listened to or deleted from within the app.
As it turns out, both the men had filed a request under the GDPR, requesting Amazon to provide them a copy of their data.
"I was very surprised about that because I don't use Amazon Alexa, let alone have an Alexa-enabled device", the customer, who was not named, told the magazine. After c't reached out to Amazon, it was only a matter of days before the company engaged with all parties involved. Back in May, an Amazon Echo mistakenly recorded a Portland family's conversations and then sent them to a person in their contacts list without their knowledge. When he unzipped the files, he discovered that the folder not only had information pertaining to his everyday Amazon searches but it also had around 1,700 WAV files and a PDF which contained transcripts of Alexa's interpretation of voice commands. An Amazon representative reportedly told them that one of their staff members had made a one-time error.
Notably, Amazon didn't reply and the download link sent to him by Amazon now stands dead. The fact Amazon is referring to this as an isolated case suggests it may be an automated system, but human intervention was required which resulted in a mistake being made.