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 Garante per la protezione dei dati
personali pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Meta
Platforms 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 11th day of July 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 25 February 2019, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (“the Recipient SA”)
concerning Meta Platforms 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 16 April 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. On 17 December 2018, the Data Subject made an access request to the Respondent
pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. The Data Subject indicated that three mobile phone
numbers appeared to have been associated by ‘Facebook Products’ with their
Facebook profile, despite having never provided these numbers to the Respondent
nor having ever used any Facebook apps on their mobile phone (or used the Facebook
‘single sign-on’ mechanism on any third party website). In addition to making a full
access request, pursuant to Article 15 GDPR, in respect of all personal data linked to
the three phone numbers, the Data Subject also raised concerns as to why their
account appeared to have been locked on a number of occasions.
b. The Respondent replied on the same date and continued to correspond with the Data
Subject in relation to their concerns over a period of time. However, the Data Subject
was not satisfied with the responses received and, accordingly, lodged a complaint
with the Recipient SA.
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. The DPC engaged with both the Data Subject (via the Recipient SA) and Respondent in relation
to the subject-matter of the complaint. On 27 October 2022 (there having been some delay
arising from an internal administrative error at the time the complaint was first received by
the DPC), the DPC wrote to the Respondent formally commencing its investigation and
requesting the Respondent to address the concerns raised.
8. On 16 December 2022, the Respondent replied to the DPC, noting that it had since written to
the Data Subject directly in relation to the complaint (as per the DPC’s request) and provided
a copy of this correspondence to the DPC. In this correspondence, the Respondent explained
that its specialist team had reviewed the matter and confirmed that there were no phone
numbers associated with the account and that no personal data (including metadata) had
been processed relating to ‘Facebook products’, as suggested. In light of the Data Subject’s
concerns that their account had been locked, Meta further explained that its specialist team
had determined that the Data Subject’s account had been placed in a “checkpoint” system
(and explained the circumstances in which this was likely to occur; e.g. where an account
shows signs of being compromised, where there have been multiple failed login attempts, or
where there has been a violation of Meta’s terms and policies) but that it was once again
active. As the account was currently active, Meta explained how the Data Subject could access
their personal information using the self-service tools.
9. Meta’s response also detailed the third parties to whom it shares personal data and provided
a breakdown of the types of personal data that may be shared. In addition, Meta provided
details of the personal information it processes that were not obtained from the Data Subject
directly, as well as details as to the source and purposes of processing of such information.
3
Meta also confirmed that it had not identified any processing of the Data Subject’s personal
data that fell within the scope of Article 22(1) GDPR.
10. On 24 January 2023, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA outlining the
Respondent’s response to their complaint. In light of the detailed responses provided by the
Respondent, as well as the Respondent’s confirmation, following a review by its specialist
team, that no mobile phone numbers were associated with the Data Subject’s account, the
DPC considered that the concerns raised by the Data Subject appeared to have been
addressed. The DPC therefore proposed to conclude the complaint by way of amicable
resolution. 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.
11. On 23 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.
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:
4
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5