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 Dutch Data Protection Authority
pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Twitter International
Company
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. On 19 September 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Twitter International Company (“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 6 May 2021.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent on 19 August 2020, requesting access to
their personal data.
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
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
the report provided by the Respondent to the Data Subject was a complete set of data. In the
circumstances, the Respondent agreed to take the following actions:
a. The Respondent clarified the Data Subject’s outstanding concerns; and
b. The Respondent provided the requested data.
8. On 12 July 2021, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent. On 15 July
2021 Twitter responded to the DPC, stating that it had encountered issues in verifying the
complaint. Twitter pointed out that the account in question was still active and provided
instructions on how the Data Subject could access the requested data. On 2 September 2021,
the DPC wrote to the Respondent, providing it with a case number and an e-mail to assist in
the verification of the complaint.
9. On 25 September 2021, the Respondent explained to the DPC that it had provided the
requested data, other than any confidential and/or commercially sensitive information, in PDF
format to the Data Subject on 15 September 2020. The Respondent noted that the redactions
were also made to ensure the privacy of third parties. Subsequently the DPC wrote to the Data
Subject via the Recipient SA, outlining the reasons provided by the Respondent for redacting
some of the data. The Data Subject responded raising further concerns.
10. The DPC further engaged with the Respondent to clarify the concerns raised by the Data
Subject. The Respondent reiterated that the data the Data Subject had requested was
redacted pursuant to Article 15(4) of the GDPR. The Respondent further refuted the Data
Subject’s assumption that automated decision-making was used to fulfil their access request.
The Respondent explained that, after the request was received, its Trust, Safety and Analytics
team compiled the requested data. The data was then sent to the Respondent’s Office of Data
Protection, where it was reviewed and redacted.
11. On 28 March 2022, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject, outlining the clarifications received
from the Respondent. When doing so, the DPC noted that, given that the requested personal
data had been provided to the Data Subject by the Respondent, the dispute between the Data
Subject and Respondent appeared to have been resolved. In the circumstances, the DPC asked
3
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 30 September 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:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
4