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, the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés, 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 29th day of May 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 8 February 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint
pursuant to Article 77 GDPR with French Data Protection Authority (Commission Nationale de
l'Informatique et des Libertés) (“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 12 May 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. On 28 January 2022, the Data Subject, whose account had been banned some time
previously, submitted an access and data portability request to the Respondent
pursuant to Articles 15 and 20 GDPR.
b. The Respondent’s responses noted that it could not identify an account associated
with the email address used by the Data Subject in their correspondence, and
explained in general terms that personal data associated with banned accounts is
deleted in accordance with its retention policies. The Respondent also noted that,
for legitimate and lawful purposes, only limited data may be retained.
c. The Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from the Respondent,
and also suggested that further data relating to their account was being retained by
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:
2
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
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. On 4 July 2022, the DPC wrote to the Respondent outlining the subject matter of the
complaint. When writing to the Respondent the DPC highlighted that as the Data Subject’s
account was banned, they were unable to access the self-service tools. The DPC further
requested that the Respondent address queries relating to the Data Subject’s ban, their access
request, and its reasoning and legal basis for withholding any data on foot of the request.
8. On 4 August 2022, the Respondent explained to the DPC that it was unable to accommodate
the Data Subject’s requests because the email address they had corresponded from did not
match the address associated with the account. As such, the Respondent was unable to
identify the account they were referring to. The Respondent advised that the Data Subject
should submit a request from the email address associated with their account and that, once
received, it would be able to accommodate the Data Subject’s request.
9. On 1 September 2022, in response to further, follow-up correspondence from the DPC, the
Respondent confirmed that the Data Subject had verified ownership of their account and that
their request had been completed in full. The Respondent provided the DPC with a copy of
the correspondence shared with the Data Subject in this regard. The Respondent addressed
the DPC’s queries relating to the Data Subject’s ban, and the Respondent’s reasoning and legal
basis for withholding any data on foot of the request. The Respondent also confirmed that,
following a review of the ban and in light of the time that had elapsed since, it had now lifted
the ban and reinstated the Data Subject’s account.
10. The DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA on 16 September 2022. When doing
so, the DPC noted that, the requested personal data now having been provided by the
3
Respondent, the Data Subject’s account having been reinstated and their outstanding
concerns addressed, the dispute between the Data Subject and Respondent appeared to have
been resolved. 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.
11. On 21 April 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.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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