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 Spanish 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 24th day of November 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 18 February 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint
pursuant to Article 77 GDPR with the Spanish 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 23 March 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject submitted a delisting request to the Respondent on 12 December
2019 in respect of a number of URLs. The Data Subject asserted that the information
contained within the URLs was inaccurate.
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 their 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 (via the Recipient SA) and Respondent in relation
to the subject-matter of the complaint. Further to that engagement, it was established that
some of the URLs which were the subject matter of the complaint were still appearing
following a search of the Data Subject’s name by the Recipient SA. In the circumstances, the
Respondent took the following actions:
a. The Respondent conducted a further review of the requested URLs, with reference to
the Data Subject’s name inclusive of Spanish accent marks; and
b. The Respondent agreed to delist the URLs that were the subject matter of the Data
Subject’s complaint.
8. On 9 June 2020, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent, providing
a list of the URLs that the Data Subject requested to have delisted. On 25 June 2020, the
Respondent responded to the DPC. The Respondent informed the DPC that it had taken action
to block 22 of the URLs submitted for delisting. The Respondent noted that a further 59 of the
URLs submitted were not found in a search conducted by the Respondent, and as such could
not be blocked. The Respondent also noted that a further 2 URLs were not blocked on the
basis that it was not possible to establish a connection between the content displayed and the
Data Subject’s name.
9. On 18 February 2021, the Recipient SA wrote to the DPC, stating that it had conducted its own
search of the Data Subject’s name, and that a number of URLs which the Respondent had
previously confirmed had been delisted were still appearing. The Recipient SA noted that the
Data Subject’s name should be searched by the Respondent utilising all relevant Spanish
accent marks, along with all combinations of the Data Subject’s first name and two surnames.
Following further engagement with the Respondent, on 24 March 2021 the Respondent
responded to the DPC, listing all the variations of the Data Subject’s name that had been
searched inclusive of Spanish accent marks, and the URLs subsequently actioned as a result of
this search.
10. On 21 July 2021, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, outlining the
correspondence received from the Respondent. On 19 August 2021, the DPC received
correspondence from the Recipient SA, highlighting that 1 URL out of the list originally
3
requested for delisting by the Data Subject continued to be returned. On 27 August 2021, the
DPC wrote to the Respondent again, requesting that it investigate this URL still being returned,
and conduct a search for any other requested URLs which may be returning. On 23 September
2021, the Respondent responded to the DPC, stating that it had reviewed all of the URLs,
which were the subject matter of the Data Subject’s complaint and confirmed that these URLs
had now been delisted.
11. The DPC subsequently wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA. When doing so, the DPC
noted that now that the URLs, which were the subject matter of the complaint, had been
delisted, the dispute between the Data Subject and Respondent appeared to have been
resolved. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within two months,
if they were 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. On 6 April 2022, and in light of the foregoing, the DPC wrote to the Recipient SA noting that
the DPC considered the complaint to have been amicably resolved and withdrawn in
accordance with section 109(3) of the Act and that it would conclude the case and inform the
Respondent.
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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:
4
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5