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 Italian Data Protection
Authority pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Yahoo
EMEA 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 22 November 2019, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant
to Article 77 GDPR with the Italian Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Yahoo EMEA 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 20 July 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject submitted a delisting request to the Respondent on 24 September
2019, requesting a number of URLs to be delisted from its search engine results. The
content of the URLs requested for delisting related to judicial proceedings that the
Data Subject had been involved in previously.
b. The Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received 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 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.
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
2
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 Data Subject had originally submitted a number of invalid URLs to the Respondent for
delisting, and that the Respondent had requested the Data Subject to resubmit their delisting
request using valid URLs and in the correct format. In the circumstances, the Respondent
agreed to take the following action:
a. Following engagement with the DPC, the Respondent agreed to delist the updated
URLs provided by the Data Subject.
8. On 1 February 2021, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent, asking
it to review the URLs provided by the Data Subject. On 8 February 2021, the Respondent
informed the DPC that the Data Subject had originally submitted a number of invalid URLs as
part of their delisting request, and that the Respondent had requested they resubmit their
delisting request using valid URLs and in the correct format. The Respondent highlighted that
the Data Subject had provided a list of the URLs they sought the delisting of, but that this list
was in an image format. The Respondent requested that the URLs be provided to it as clickable
links, not an image, in order to avoid the risk of human error.
9. Following further engagement with the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, the DPC provided
this list of URLs to the Respondent on 05 May 2021. On 11 May 2021, the Respondent
confirmed that it had now delisted a number of the requested URLs, but that some of the
other requested URLs were invalid, as they did not appear in a search for the Data Subject’s
name in Europe or the UK.
10. Following further engagement with the Italian DPA, the DPC informed the Respondent on 11
November 2021 that the Data Subject’s legal representative had highlighted that a number of
URLs which the Respondent had stated did not return against a search of the Data Subject’s
name were still returning. Furthermore, a number of URLs which Yahoo had confirmed as
delisted were still appearing following a search of the Data Subject’s name.
3
11. Following further engagement with the Respondent, it confirmed to the DPC on 22 December
2021 that all URLs requested for delisting were either no longer appearing following a search
of the Data Subject’s name, or would be delisted in due course. The DPC wrote to the Data
Subject via the Recipient SA on 20 April 2022, providing the Respondent’s comments regarding
each URL submitted by the Data Subject. 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 communication from the Data
Subject and, accordingly, the complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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