In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Complaint Reference Number:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Bavarian Data Protection
Authority pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Microsoft
Ireland Operations Limited
Record of Amicable Resolution of the complaint and its consequent withdrawal pursuant to
Section 109(3) of the Data Protection Act, 2018
Further to the requirements of EDPB Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical implementation of
amicable settlements Version 2.0 (adopted on 12 May 2022)
RECORD OF AMICABLE RESOLUTION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EDPB GUIDELINES 06/2022 ON THE
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF AMICABLE
SETTLEMENTS VERSION 2.0, ADOPTED 12 MAY 2022
Dated the 21st day of October 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 20 June 2018, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited (“the Respondent”).
2. In circumstances where the Data Protection Commission (“the DPC”) was deemed to be the
competent authority for the purpose of Article 56(1) GDPR, the Recipient SA transferred the
complaint to the DPC on 17 June 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject submitted an access request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR to the
Respondent on 15 June 2018. On 19 June 2018, the Respondent responded to the Data
Subject explaining how they could access their requested data by logging into their
Microsoft account.
b. The Data Subject was not satisfied with the Respondent’s response, as they wished to
access all data held in relation to them, not limited to the data connected to their
Microsoft account.
Action taken by the DPC
4. The DPC, pursuant to Section 109(4) of the Data Protection Act, 2018 (“the 2018 Act”), is
required, as a preliminary matter, to assess the likelihood of the parties to the complaint
reaching, within a reasonable time, an amicable resolution of the subject-matter of the
complaint. Where the DPC considers that there is a reasonable likelihood of such an amicable
resolution being concluded between the parties, it is empowered, by Section 109(2) of the
2018 Act, to take such steps as it considers appropriate to arrange or facilitate such an
amicable resolution.
5. Following a preliminary examination of the material referred to it by the Recipient SA, the DPC
considered that there was a reasonable likelihood of the parties concerned reaching, within a
reasonable time, an amicable resolution of the subject matter of the complaint. The DPC’s
experience is that complaints of this nature are particularly suitable for amicable resolution in
circumstances where there is an obvious solution to the dispute, if the respondent is willing
to engage in the process. In this regard, the DPC had regard to:
a. The relationship between the Data Subject and Respondent (being, in this case, an
individual consumer and a service provider); and
b. The nature of the complaint (in this case, an unsuccessful attempt by the Data Subject
to exercise his/her data subject rights).
2
6. While not relevant to the assessment that the DPC is required to carry out pursuant to Section
109(4) of the 2018 Act, the DPC also had regard to EDPB Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical
implementation of amicable settlements Version 2.0, adopted on 12 May 2022 (“Document
06/2022”), and considered that:
a. the possible conclusion of the complaint by way of amicable resolution would not
hamper the ability of the supervisory authorities to maintain the high level of
protection that the GDPR seeks to create; and that
b. such a conclusion, in this case, would likely carry advantages for the Data Subject,
whose rights under the GDPR would be vindicated swiftly, as well as for the controller,
who would be provided the opportunity to bring its behaviour into compliance with
the GDPR.
Amicable Resolution
7. The DPC engaged with both the Data Subject (via the Recipient SA) and Respondent in relation
to the subject-matter of the complaint. Further to that engagement, it was established that
the Respondent was willing to conduct a search for any personal data relating to the Data
Subject outside of their Microsoft account, but it required the Data Subject to initiate the
request themselves for security and privacy reasons. In the circumstances, the Respondent
agreed to take the following action:
a. The Respondent outlined that in order to facilitate the Data Subject’s access to data
processed about them outside of their Microsoft account, the Data Subject was first
required to initiate such a request themselves for security and privacy reasons.
b. Subsequently, the Data Subject would be required to authenticate their request by
providing and validating ownership of ‘alternate identifiers’ such as email address,
phone number and/or postal address before the Respondent could perform an
internal search for the data requested.
8. On 18 November 2020, the DPC outlined to the Data Subject the prerequisites to be met in
order for the Respondent to facilitate access to the personal data processed outside of their
Microsoft account. On 22 November 2020, the Data Subject responded to the DPC stating
that they were not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. The Data Subject asserted that
Microsoft’s procedures, in particularly its authentication procedure, were too complicated.
The Data Subject also objected to having to potentially disclose further personal information
to the Respondent.
9. Following further engagement by the DPC, the Respondent subsequently outlined in more
detail the security reasons behind its requirement for additional authentication before
facilitating access to data not directly associated with a Microsoft account. The Respondent
noted that for data which is associated with a Microsoft account it has remote secure systems,
including in-app tools, which enable data subjects to access and control their personal data.
3
However, for personal data not directly associated with a Microsoft account, the Respondent
stated that requests for this data can be made via its online request form. The Respondent
noted that, for these types of requests being made, which are not directly linked to a Microsoft
account, it requires the data subject to authenticate their request by providing and validating
ownership of a number of identifiers, including their email address and phone number. The
Respondent noted that these measures are in place to protect the privacy and security of all
of its users against social and technical manipulations that attempt to phish or otherwise
compromise users, and to prevent the unintentional exposure of personal data to
unauthorised third parties. Separately, the Respondent provided the DPC with a copy of
correspondence it had issued to the Data Subject directly, explaining how they could authentic
their request, and explaining why it required this additional authentication. On 10 August
2021, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject outlining the Respondent’s response, including why
the Respondent required the Data Subject to authenticate their request before providing
them with the requested data. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify
it, within two months, if they not satisfied with the outcome, so that the DPC could take
further action. The DPC did not receive any further communication from the Data Subject
and, accordingly, the complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
10. In circumstances where the subject-matter of the complaint has been amicably resolved, in
full, the complaint, by virtue of Section 109(3) of the 2018, is deemed to have been withdrawn
by the Data Subject.
Confirmation of Outcome
11. For the purpose of Document 06/2022, the DPC confirms that:
a. The complaint, in its entirety, has been amicably resolved between the parties
concerned;
b. The agreed resolution is such that the object of the complaint no longer exists; and
c. Having consulted with the supervisory authorities concerned on the information set
out above, as required by Document 06/2022, the DPC has now closed off its file in
this matter.
12. If dissatisfied with the outcome recorded herein, the parties have the right to an effective
remedy by way of an application for judicial review, by the Irish High Court, of the process
applied by the DPC in the context of the within complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the DPC:
_____________________________
Sandra Skehan
Deputy Commissioner
4