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 MTCH Technology
Services 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 15th day of December 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 77 GDPR with the
French Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning MTCH Technology Services
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 22 February 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s response to their Article 13
GDPR request for information and their Article 15 GDPR access request, following the
suspension of their account.
b. The Data Subject was also dissatisfied with portions of MTCH’s updated Terms of
Service and Privacy Policy, insofar as it related to the retention of personal data of
individuals banned from the Tinder service.
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, the Respondent
conducted a fresh review of the Data Subject’s account ban and decided to lift it. In the
circumstances, the Respondent took the following actions:
a. The Respondent contacted the Data Subject directly, informing them that their
account ban had been lifted; and
b. The Respondent provided the DPC with information relating to the Data Subject’s
concerns with respect to any automated profiling and processing of personal data
which may result in an account being banned. The Respondent also provided
information on the duration for which the Respondent retains personal data relating
to banned accounts.
8. On 20 May 2022, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent. The DPC
noted that the Data Subject was dissatisfied with portions of the Respondent’s updated Terms
of Service and Privacy Policy, insofar as it related to the retention of personal data of
individuals banned from the Tinder service. The DPC also noted that the Data Subject’s Tinder
account had been banned by the Respondent for a violation of its Terms of Use or Community
Guidelines.
9. The DPC informed the Respondent of the Data Subject’s concerns regarding automated
decision making, and their assertion that the Respondent’s retention of their data for ‘as long
as necessary’ as a result of their account ban is without proper oversight, and could lead to
the Respondent retaining personal data indefinitely. The DPC highlighted that the Respondent
had previously confirmed to the Data Subject that their account was banned from its service
due to a violation of its Terms of Use or Community Guidelines. The DPC noted that the
Respondent had stated in this correspondence to the Data Subject that it did not offer an
appeal process at that time, and that the Data Subject’s account would remain banned, and
furthermore they would not be able to create a new Tinder profile using their Facebook
account and/or phone number.
3
10. On 20 June 2022, the Respondent responded to the DPC. The Respondent stated that its
Tinder Trust and Safety team had reviewed the Data Subject’s account again and found that
it had no record of an appeal process being conducted. However, the Respondent confirmed
that it had decided to lift the ban on the Data Subject’s account, allowing the Data Subject to
create a new account.
11. The Respondent also provided information on their account banning practices and their
retention policies. The Respondent clarified that when an account is deleted or banned, the
vast majority of personal data is deleted, and that only limited personal data is retained to
ensure the safety of its users and protect their vital interests. The Respondent explained that
this data is retained for 5 years, and then subsequently deleted. On 8 August 2022, the DPC
wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA outlining the information received from the
Respondent. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within 2
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 1 November 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.
4
Signed for and on behalf of the DPC:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5