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 French Data Protection Authority
pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Airbnb Ireland UC.
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 2nd day of December 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 26 September 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the French Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Airbnb Ireland UC (“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 December 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent requesting access to their personal data,
particularly a statement of rental activity for their property, which they owned, and
which their wife had been subletting out. This statement of rental activity was being
sought by the Data Subject in the context of ongoing divorce proceedings.
b. The Data Subject was not satisfied with the Respondent’s response to their access
request.
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
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 information from the account in question, which the Data Subject sought access to, was
that of a third party user. In the circumstances, the Respondent took the following actions:
a. The Respondent outlined to the DPC that, as the account in question was that of a
third party user, the information contained therein is generated because of their
activities as the account holder. As such, the Respondent asserted that this data,
including financial data, constitutes the personal data of the third party user, and as
such the Respondent could not disclose personal data which relates to a third party.
b. The Respondent informed the DPC that it had previously offered to facilitate a pass-
through notification process for the Data Subject, in which the Data Subject would
send the Respondent their request and it would pass it on to the account holder, but
that the Data Subject had not taken it up on this offer.
8. On 5 March 2021, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent. The DPC
explained that the Data Subject was seeking a statement of rental activity for 2018, for a
property that they claimed they solely own, but which their wife was subletting out. The DPC
noted that the Data Subject was requesting this information in the context of ongoing divorce
proceedings. On 19 March 2021, the Respondent responded to the DPC. The Respondent
informed the DPC that the information sought by the Data Subject relates to a third party
account, and a listing that is not co-hosted by the Data Subject. The Respondent continued,
noting that, since the account in question is that of a third party user, the information
contained therein is generated as a result of the activities of the account holder and therefore
constitutes their personal data (including financial data) as the data subject.
9. The Respondent noted that the Data Subject had provided information to it, which they
alleged evidences their ownership of the property at issue, along with various allegations
about the account holder’s tax and financial affairs. Despite this, the Respondent stated that
it could not unilaterally rely on information provided by the Data Subject to disclose personal
data relating to a third party. The Respondent noted that, insofar as the information on the
3
account constituted the personal data of the Data Subject, their right of access to that
information is restricted by Article 15(4) GDPR, as the disclosure of this information could
adversely affect the rights and freedoms of the third party who is the account holder. The
Respondent concluded by asserting that, in cases such as these where a dispute or ambiguity
exists, it is not appropriate for it to act as an arbiter of fact.
10. The Respondent stated that it had previously offered to facilitate a pass-through notification
process for the Data Subject, in which the Data Subject would send the Respondent their
request and it would pass it on to the account holder, but that the Data Subject had not taken
it up on this offer. With regards to the information sought by the Data Subject, the Respondent
stated that it would require a formal, independent intervention in the form of a court order
instructing it to disclose this information before it would do so. The Respondent stated that it
believed this to be a reasonable balancing of the present potentially competing rights.
11. On 9 July 2021, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, outlining the response
of the Respondent, and providing the Data Subject with its examination of their complaint. 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 14 October 2021, 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.
4
Signed for and on behalf of the DPC:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5