In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Data Protection Commission
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 19th day of June 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 21 July 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the Data Protection Commission (“the DPC”) concerning Airbnb Ireland
UC (“the Respondent”).
2. The DPC was deemed to be the competent authority for the purpose of Article 56(1) GDPR.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject identified an unauthorised transaction using their card on another
Airbnb account and reported this to the Respondent. The Respondent refunded the
transaction on 16 July 2022 and confirmed this to the Data Subject.
b. The Data Subject suspected their card had been compromised as a result of a breach
of security by the Respondent. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent (also on
16 July 2022) seeking to obtain information related to how the unauthorised
transaction was allowed to occur, stating that this related to their personal data. The
Data Subject also asked for the contact details of the Respondent’s Data Protection
Officer (DPO).
c. The Respondent’s customer service team which handled the request stated in
response that it was unable to release information related to the accounts of other
users without a formal request being made by a government agency or law
enforcement. The customer service team also stated that it was unable to provide the
contact details of the DPO.
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 Data Subject, 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. The DPC engaged with both the Data Subject and Respondent in relation to the subject-matter
of the complaint. On 5 October 2022, the DPC wrote to the Respondent querying the reasons
as to why the Respondent refused to provide the Data Subject with the information sought,
and questioned whether the Respondent’s customer service team failed to properly identify
and address a valid access request. The DPC also queried why the Respondent had not
provided the Data Subject with the contact details of its DPO when requested.
8. On 7 November 2022, the Respondent confirmed to the Data Subject that, having reviewed
the matter, neither the Data Subject’s Airbnb account nor the broader Airbnb platform had
been compromised. The Respondent explained that the bad actor involved in the
unauthorised transaction must therefore have acquired the Data Subject’s details from
another source. The Respondent explained that once it had been notified of the fraudulent
transaction it had immediately removed the offending account from its platform. The
Respondent explained that it had now emailed the Data Subject directly providing them with
a full account of the incident in question and offering any further assistance it could provide.
For completeness, the Respondent also provided the Data Subject with a copy of their access
file. A copy of this correspondence was provided to the DPC.
9. In both its response to the DPC and in its email to the Data Subject referred to above, the
Respondent noted that its customer service team handling the incident had made a number
of errors, including failing to provide the contact details of its DPO and sufficient information
regarding the incident generally. The Respondent acknowledged that the DPO’s details,
although available through it privacy policy, should have been provided to the Data Subject
upon request. The Respondent outlined that it was taking measures to prevent such errors
3
from reoccurring and that it was reviewing its customer services practices and policies in order
to improve agents’ engagement with users and their ability to recognise the exercise of data
subject rights.
10. The DPC raised some follow-up queries in order to satisfy itself that the Data Subject’s card
details had not been exposed as a result of a data breach and how the Respondent was able
to confirm this. In response, the Respondent explained that it had conducted further
investigations and found no indication that the account had been compromised or otherwise
illegitimately accessed. The Respondent explained that, in particular, there were no online
identifiers (e.g. IP addresses or device details) that deviated from the Data Subject’s activity
profile, there were no changes to login methods, passwords or other profile information, and
“nor were there any signs of suspicious or otherwise unusual activity within the account that
would indicate illegitimate access.”
11. The DPC considered that the Respondent had thus provided satisfactory assurances that the
account in question had not been compromised as a result of any breach of security by the
Respondent. In addition, the Respondent explained that, even if its systems had been
compromised (which it again emphasised was not the case here), any bad actor would not
have been able to access full card details anyway, because card details are not stored on the
user account but are instead stored “in a hashed form within [the Respondent’s] supplier’s
systems in accordance with [Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards]”. The
Respondent further explained that the use of any card on its platform “is governed by the
security measures in place between the card holder and the financial institution in question”.
12. On 9 December 2022, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject outlining the Respondent’s actions
in response to the complaint. In light of the information and clarifications provided, as well as
the fact that the Data Subject had also been provided with a full copy of their access file, the
DPC considered that 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 a
specified timeframe, 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.
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
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.
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
5