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 Datatilsynet (Denmark DPA) pursuant to
Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Lime Electric Ireland 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 4th day of December 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 14 April 2021, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 77
GDPR with Datatilsynet (“the Recipient SA”) concerning Lime Electric Ireland 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 3 May 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. On 6 January 2021 the Data Subject sought the deletion of their account with the
Respondent. On 7 January 2021, the Data Subject also requested, prior to the erasure
of their account, information about any third parties with whom their data had been
shared.
b. On 11 January 2021, the Respondent confirmed that their account had been queued
for deletion. However, the Data Subject replied to note that they would still like to
learn more about the Respondent’s partners and what information it may have shared
with them. On 27 January 2021, the Respondent directed the Data Subject to its
Privacy Notice in respect of further information about what personal information it
collects, stores and processes about its users. The Data Subject remained unsatisfied
and followed up on these queries on a number of subsequent occasions but did not
receive a substantive response.
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
2
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:
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. On 19 May 2022, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s
complaint to the Respondent. The DPC queried the Respondent’s response to the Data
Subject’s queries and asked that it provide a substantive response to same.
8. On 17 June 2022, the Respondent responded to the DPC and noted that it advised the Data
Subject on 11 January 2021 that it deleted their data as per the Data Subject’s request. The
Respondent informed the DPC that, subsequent to the Data Subject’s initial erasure request,
the Data Subject subsequently requested information on third parties with whom their data
was shared, and later sought access to their data. As the Data Subject’s data had already been
deleted at this time, the Respondent stated it was unable to provide specific details of the
data it held or the third parties it was shared with. However, in the interests of resolving the
complaint, the Respondent agreed to share more detailed information about the third parties
to whom it generally shares user information. The Respondent noted that it had written to
the Data Subject directly in this regard and provided the DPC with a copy of the
correspondence. The Respondent stated it had provided the Data Subject with a list of the
authorised third parties it typically shares user data with.
9. On 20 June 2022, the Data Subject wrote to the Respondent directly and copied the DPC into
the correspondence. The Data Subject stated that they were not satisfied with the
Respondent’s response and requested that the Respondent either provide proof that all data
related to their account had been deleted – including with respect to third parties – or that
the Respondent look into their request again. The Data Subject noted that they were
dissatisfied with the response to their queries regarding data sharing with third parties having
been provided in a general form only. The DPC also wrote to the Respondent to request that
it provide the Data Subject with a substantive response to these queries.
3
10. On 27 July 2022, the Respondent responded to the DPC noting that it reached out directly to
the Data Subject in respect of their correspondence of 20 June 2022, and provided the DPC
with a copy of its response. The DPC noted that the Respondent confirmed to the Data Subject
that all of their personal data were deleted from its systems on 11 January 2021. However, as
a result of this deletion and the time that had elapsed since, the Respondent was unable to
provide specific details of the data previously held or the third parties to whom it may have
been shared. Nonetheless, the Respondent explained to the Data Subject that it had
investigated further and concluded that “the only third parties with whom [the Respondent]
believes your data may have been shared are [the Respondent’s] software and systems
providers and [the Respondent’s] third party payment processor”. The Respondent further
stated that it had “confirmed internally that when your information was deleted in January
2021, it was also deleted by all of these third parties.”
11. On 2 August 2023, and having investigated the matter further, the Respondent provided a
comprehensive list of all third parties to whom the Data Subject’s personal data may have
been shared. The Respondent again confirmed that the Data Subject’s personal data had been
deleted by all of these third parties in January 2021.
12. In light of the comprehensive information provided by the Respondent as set out above, the
DPC considered it appropriate to conclude the complaint by way of amicable resolution. As
such, on 31 August 2023, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject (via the Recipient SA) outlining
the Respondent’s response to its investigation. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data
Subject to notify it, within a specified timeframe, if they were not satisfied with the outcome,
so that the DPC could take further action. On 4 October 2023, the Recipient SA confirmed
that no further communication had been received from the Data Subject. Accordingly, the
complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
13. On 1 November 2023, 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.
14. 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
15. 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
4
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.
16. 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
5