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 Österreichische
Datenschutzbehörde pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning
Yahoo EMEA 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 6th day of November 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 8 September 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant
to Article 77 GDPR with the Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde (“the Recipient SA”)
concerning Yahoo EMEA 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 20 January 2023.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent on 28 August 2022 requesting the
delisting of two URLs. The Data Subject had officially changed their last name in 2011,
and their complaint concerned URLs returned against a Yahoo search of their former
name. The content of these URLs related to criminal proceedings involving the Data
Subject in 2010. These criminal proceedings were terminated without conviction in
2016, a fact not mentioned in the URLs.
b. One of the URLs had been addressed in the context of a previous complaint handled
by the DPC. In that complaint, the Respondent agreed to delist that URL against the
search term submitted. However, the Data Subject had now submitted this URL using
a different search term, consisting of the Data Subject’s former name preceded by an
abbreviated form of the Data Subject’s title. Regarding the other URL, which was
submitted in respect of the same search term, the Respondent had refused to delist
on the grounds that there did not appear to be any connection between the name
submitted and the URL.
c. The Data Subject was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s 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
2
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 identified in search results and the service provider responsible for
providing those search results); 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 3 July 2023, the DPC wrote to the Respondent
formally commencing its investigation and requesting the Respondent to address the
concerns raised.
8. In response, the Respondent noted that the first URL had been submitted to it previously but
that it had never been submitted against the search term identified in the complaint (i.e. the
Data Subject’s former name preceded by an abbreviated form of the Data Subject’s title). The
Respondent stated that it was happy to accept this search term as a valid extension of the
Data Subject’s name. However, the Respondent explained that the URL was no longer
appearing at all within the search index which powers its search results in Europe, regardless
of the search term used. As such, the DPC noted that this URL was no longer in issue in the
complaint.
9. Regarding the second URL, the Respondent explained that this had initially been refused
because there was no direct reference or inference to the Data Subject’s identity either in the
URL or the web page content. However, the Respondent further explained that having
reviewed the screenshots provided in the complaint and in the spirit of resolving the
complaint amicably, it had now dereferenced that URL against the search term in question as
requested by the Data Subject.
3
10. In light of the explanations provided and actions taken by the Respondent as set out above,
the DPC considered it appropriate to conclude the complaint by way of amicable resolution.
Accordingly, on 24 July 2023, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, setting
out the explanations provided and actions taken by the Respondent and notifying them that
the DPC 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 26 September 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
a. 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