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 Hamburg Data Protection Authority
pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Google 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 2nd day of October 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 30 November 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with Hamburg Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Google 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 7 February 2023.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. On 2 September 2022, the Data Subject submitted an access request pursuant to
Article 15 GDPR following the disablement of their account. The access request was
made to the Respondent via email.
b. In response, the Respondent informed the Data Subject that, in this instance, unless
the account disablement is overturned by the relevant team, it would not be able to
provide them with their requested data.
c. The Data Subject was dissatisfied with the response 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:
a. The relationship between the Data Subject and Respondent (being, in this case, an
individual consumer and a service provider); and
2
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 17 April 2023, the DPC wrote to the Respondent
formally commencing its investigation and requesting it address the concerns raised.
8. In response, the Respondent explained that the Data Subject’s account was disabled, in
accordance with its terms and conditions, for a severe violation of its content policies, which
prohibit sharing and storing contents that are dangerous or manifestly unlawful. The
Respondent explained how it was relying on section 60(3)(a)(ii) of the 2018 Act (which gives
effect to Article 23(1)(d) GDPR under Irish law and provides for the restriction of data subject
rights where necessary and proportionate for the purposes of “the prevention, detection,
investigation and prosecution of criminal offences”) as well as Article 15(4) GDPR in refusing
to provide the Data Subject with the personal data sought. The Respondent also provided a
detailed explanation of each step in the process which led to the Data Subject’s account
disablement, including the appeal process engaged in and manual reviews carried out. In the
circumstances, the DPC was satisfied that the Respondent’s reliance on section 60(3)(a)(ii) of
the 2018 Act and Article 15(4) GDPR was appropriate.
9. The Data Subject was also dissatisfied with having only been provided with a general
explanation as to why their account was disabled. In relation to this point, the Respondent
explained to the DPC that in October 2022 it had updated its notices which are presented to
users whose accounts are disabled for violations such as that committed by the Data Subject.
The Respondent explained that, should the Data Subject login to their disabled account now,
they would be presented with a message informing them of the reason for the disablement.
10. In light of the explanations provided by the Respondent as to the process followed in the
decision to disable the Data Subject’s account, the explanations provided by the Respondent
as to its reliance on section 60(3)(a)(ii) of the 2018 Act and Article 15(4) GDPR, and the fact
3
that the Respondent had explained how the Data Subject could obtain the reason for their
account disablement, the DPC considered it appropriate to conclude the complaint by way of
amicable resolution. As such, on 26 June 2023, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject (via the
Recipient SA) proposing an amicable resolution to the complaint on the basis of the foregoing
actions. 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. On 4 August 2023,
the Recipient SA wrote to the DPC confirming that the Data Subject did not respond and,
accordingly, the complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
11. On 22 August 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
4
Data Protection Commission
5