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 Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych
(Poland DPA) 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 31st day of March 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On, 28 June 2021, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with the Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych (Poland DPA) (“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 26 January 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. On 19 May 2021, the Data Subject submitted an access request pursuant to Article 15
GDPR to the Respondent, requesting access to their personal data linked to their
Airbnb account. The Data Subject also made a further request to the Respondent for
the subsequent deletion of their personal data.
b. The Data Subject asserted that the Respondent did not fulfil their requests and did
not provide any reason for the delay.
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).
2
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 17 May 2022, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s
complaint to the Respondent. The DPC explained the Data Subject had submitted access and
erasure requests directly to it on 19 May 2021. However, on 21 May 2021 the Respondent
informed the Data Subject of suspicious activity on the account, and explained that if they
wished to proceed with their access and erasure requests that they would need to verify their
identity as the account holder.
8. The Data Subject subsequently engaged with the Respondent in order to verify their identity,
and on 2 June 2021, the Respondent informed the Data Subject that, as an alternative to them
providing a copy of their ID to verify their identity as the account holder, they could instead
log into their account within the next 3 days. Once logged in, they could contact the
Respondent’s customer support in order to progress their request. However, on 5 June 2021,
the Data Subject informed the Respondent that they had attempted to log into their account
but was unable to contact anyone through the Help Centre.
9. On 6 June 2021, the Respondent informed the Data Subject that it had reviewed their erasure
request but was unable to complete it, as it was required to retain the Data Subject’s personal
data for legal and public interest reasons. However, the Respondent outlined that the account
had been deactivated, and that the Data Subject’s public profile was no longer visible. The
Data Subject engaged further with the Respondent, restating their original access and erasure
requests and pointing out the requirement that their requests be fulfilled within the stipulated
one-month timeframe.
10. On 20 July 2022, the Respondent responded to the DPC. The Respondent informed the DPC
that on 17 June 2022 it had provided the Data Subject with their access file again. The
Respondent outlined that following a review of the complaint, it discovered that the access
file was originally issued to the Data Subject on 5 July 2021 but that, notwithstanding this, it
again provided the access file to the Data Subject on 17 June 2022. With respect to the Data
Subject’s erasure request, the Respondent reiterated that it was not in a position to delete
3
their account in instances such as this, due to an incident of property damage and a collection
failure of a security deposit, but that it can deactivate accounts instead, rendering them
inaccessible on the Respondent’s platform.
11. On 12 September 2022, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject outlining the Respondent’s
response to 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 16 February 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.
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