In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Data Protection Commission
pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning TSG Interactive
Services (Ireland) 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 18th day of November 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 24 January 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the Data Protection Commission (“the DPC”) concerning TSG Interactive
Services (Ireland) Limited (“the Respondent”).
2. The DPC was deemed to be the competent authority for the purpose of Article 56(1) GDPR.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent on 12 November 2021 requesting access
to their personal data.
b. The Data Subject did not receive any response from the Respondent.
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 Data Subject, 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).
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:
2
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 and Respondent in relation to the subject-matter
of the complaint. Further to that engagement, it was established that the email address to
which the Data Subject’s emails were sent was not monitored. In the circumstances, the
Respondent agreed to take the following action:
a. The Respondent agreed to grant the Data Subject immediate access to the requested
personal data; and
b. The Respondent informed the DPC that it would clarify and improve the language
included in its automatic responses, to ensure that a similar situation to the current
complaint would not happen again in the future.
8. On 6 May 2022, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent. The DPC
provided the Respondent with the Data Subject’s name, email address and player name and
all relevant complaint documentation. On 11 May 2022, the Respondent responded to the
DPC. The Respondent explained that during its investigation of the complaint it had confirmed
that automatic responses had been issued to the Data Subject at the time of their access
request, informing them that the email address the Data Subject was contacting the
Respondent at was not being monitored and that they should use an alternative means of
contacting it. The Respondent noted that the email address the Data Subject had addressed
their access request to is not referenced anywhere on its products today, and may have been
an email address the Data Subject had saved from a previous interaction with them. The
Respondent provided the DPC with a copy of the correspondence it sent to the Data Subject,
in which it confirmed that it would provide the Data Subject with a copy of their requested
personal data. The Respondent also confirmed that it had used this opportunity to improve
the language in this automatic response, to ensure that a similar situation to the current
complaint would not happen again in the future.
9. On 8 June 2022, the DPC contacted the Data Subject. The DPC informed the Data Subject that
the Respondent had provided the DPC with a copy of its correspondence that had been issued
to them. The DPC stated that the Respondent addressed the issue of its non-response to the
Data Subject’s access request and stated that the email address that was used to submit the
access request was unmonitored and a retired email address. In the circumstances, the DPC
asked the Data Subject to notify it, within two months, if he/she was not satisfied with the
outcome, so that the DPC could take further action. The DPC did not receive any further
3
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 Act, 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:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
4