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 Commission Nationale de
l'Informatique et des Libertés pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation,
concerning LinkedIn 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 11th day of July 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 7 April 2021, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (“the Recipient SA”)
concerning LinkedIn 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 4 August 2021.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent on 19 February 2021 submitting an
access request pursuant to Article 15 following their account suspension. The Data
Subject requested all of their personal data, specifically the reasons why LinkedIn
suspended their account and if they had been subject to automated decision-making.
b. The Respondent failed to respond to the access request within the permitted
timeframe and the Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from
the Respondent as they did not receive all of the requested information.
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 20 October 2022, the DPC wrote to the Respondent
formally commencing its investigation and requesting that it address the concerns raised.
8. The Respondent confirmed to the DPC that on 19 February 2021 it received an access request
from the Data Subject. However, the access request was made to a member of its Member
Safety and Recovery team, and its representative did not escalate the request to the correct
LinkedIn team for proper handling.
9. The Respondent also stated that upon receipt of a complaint from the Recipient SA on 20 July
2021, it provided the Data Subject with their full LinkedIn data archive. However, the Data
Subject was not satisfied with this as it did not contain the reasons for their account
suspension nor whether they had been the subject of automated decision-making. The
Respondent clarified to the DPC that the Data Subject’s account had been suspended in error
as a result of a misinterpretation by the staff member (who was not a native French speaker)
who placed one of the restrictions on the account. The Respondent confirmed that it had since
lifted the suspension on the account on 26 October 2021. The Respondent also confirmed that
the suspension of the account was not the result of automated decision-making, stating that
any restrictions placed on an account “are implemented after a manual review of the data
subject’s on-platform activity”. The Respondent outlined its procedures for determining when
to restrict an account.
10. The DPC also requested that the Respondent set out what internal processes it had put in
place since the Data Subject’s original access request to ensure that data subject rights are
correctly identified and responded to. The Respondent emphasised that this specific matter
was a case of individual error and assured the DPC that it provides regular privacy and data
protection training to its entire staff to industry standards.
11. The DPC noted that the requested personal data had now been provided by the Respondent
and the Data Subject’s concerns relating to their access request had been clarified. As such,
3
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 three weeks, 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 May 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:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
4