In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with der Landesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz
und die Informationsfreiheit Baden-Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg DPA) pursuant to Article
77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning TSG Interactive Services (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 ON 12 MAY 2022)
Dated the 11th day of April 2024
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 28 December 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 of the GDPR with der Landesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit
Baden-Württemberg (“the Recipient SA”) concerning TSG Interactive Services (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) of the GDPR, the Recipient SA transferred
the complaint to the DPC on 14 March 2023.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject emailed the Respondent on 27 December 2022, to request: access,
rectification, erasure, and, restricted processing of their personal data, pursuant to
Articles 15, 16, 17, and 18, of the GDPR, respectively. The Data Subject also raised
further concerns with the processing of their personal data by the Respondent.
b. The Respondent replied on 27 December 2022, indicating the Data Subject’s account
on the Respondent’s platform had been closed, but it was unable to proceed with the
Data Subject’s erasure request pursuant to Article 17 of the GDPR. The Respondent
clarified it was required to retain certain data for a period of six years in order to
comply with its legal obligations, as per Article 17(3)(b) of the GDPR.
c. As the Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from the
Respondent, they 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. Further to that engagement, it was established that
while the Respondent had addressed the Data Subject’s erasure request under Article 17 of
the GDPR, it had failed to identify and respond to the Data Subject’s rights requests under
Articles 15, 16, and, 18 respectively. In the circumstances, the Respondent agreed to take the
following action:
a. The Respondent wrote to the Data Subject on 15 August 2023, informing them that
they had granted immediate access to the requested personal data; and
b. To apologise for the failure to identify the Data Subject’s rights requests, and address
any outstanding requests; and
c. To clarify that as part of its retention policy, the Respondent had restricted processing
and access to the Data Subject’s personal data when closing the account. The
Respondent noted it would anonymise the personal data associated with the account
two years from the closure of the account, and, it would complete the full erasure of
any retained personal data on 28 December 2028, after a total retention period of six
years. The Respondent also confirmed that it was obliged to retain this information in
line with its obligations under financial regulations, as it had a recorded deposit on
the account, but that the restrictions placed on the data would prevent access unless
required to provide evidence of compliance with its legal obligations, pursuant to
Article 18(2) of the GDPR.
3
8. On 8 September 2023, the Respondent confirmed that it had contacted the Data Subject in
this regard, and provided the DPC with a copy of the letter that it had sent to the Data Subject.
9. On 27 September 2023, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, seeking their
views on the action taken by the Respondent. This letter issued to the Data Subject on 26
October 2023. In this correspondence, the DPC requested a reply, within a stated timeframe,
if they were not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent, so that the DPC
could take further action.
10. On 6 December 2023, the Recipient SA confirmed to the DPC that no response had been
received from the Data Subject.
11. On 15 February 2024, 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