In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Bayerisches Landesamt für
Datenschutzaufsicht (Bavarian DPA), pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection
Regulation, concerning Microsoft Ireland Operations 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 31st day of May 2024
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 10 June 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 of the GDPR with the Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht (“the
Recipient SA”) concerning Microsoft Ireland Operations 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 6 April 2023.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject lodged an erasure request in relation to an email account that was
originally created in 2017, which the Data Subject claimed to have not used for a
number of years. The Data Subject believed that the account should have been
deleted in accordance with the Respondent’s policies after two years of inactivity,
though subsequently discovered that they could still log into the account in question.
Further, the Data Subject claimed that they experienced difficulties in deleting the
account themselves, and as such, first contacted the Respondent via phone call in
2021 to obtain its deletion.
b. After lodging their complaint with the Recipient SA, the Data Subject thereafter
contacted the Respondent again in this regard on 15 January 2023. In its response to
the Data Subject of 18 January 2023, the Respondent referred the Data Subject to the
use of its self-deletion tool to obtain the account’s deletion.
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, the Respondent initially
informed the DPC that it could not locate an account associated with the Data Subject’s email
address, suggesting that the account had been deleted. It also provided information in respect
of why the Data Subject was initially referred to the self-deletion tool, as the means of
obtaining the account’s erasure.
8. Upon receipt of this correspondence from the Respondent, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject
via the Recipient SA as part of the amicable resolution process, noting the Respondent’s prior
confirmation that the account in question appeared to have been deleted. This letter issued
to the Recipient SA on 12 September 2023, and thereafter issued to the Data Subject on 14
September 2023. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within a
stated timeframe, if they were not satisfied with the outcome, so that the DPC could take
further action.
9. The DPC received a response from the Data Subject, via the Recipient SA on 19 September
2023, wherein they provided evidence that the account appeared to still be active, as the
account log-in remained accessible.
10. On foot of this response, the DPC corresponded further with the Respondent, in order to
obtain clarity on the status of the account. In its response of 27 October 2023, the Respondent
informed the DPC that:
3
a. The reason that the Data Subject could still log-in to the account was because it was
linked with two dormant Skype accounts, neither of which had been created
successfully, hence why they did not initially appear when the Respondent attempted
to locate same. As such, the Data Subject could not properly schedule the account for
deletion via the self-deletion tool.
b. The Respondent also clarified the issue raised by the Data Subject regarding the
periods of inactivity before an account is scheduled for deletion. To this end, the
Respondent confirmed that when the account in question was created in 2017, it had
a five-year retention period for inactive accounts in place. As the Data Subject later
logged into the account in 2021, they inadvertently reset the period of inactivity for
retention. The Respondent confirmed that this retention policy had since been
updated to the current period of two-years.
11. The DPC continued to engage with both the Respondent and Data Subject, via the Recipient
SA. In later correspondence of 5 January 2024, the Respondent confirmed that the account in
question had been deleted, with deletion occurring on 19 December 2023.
12. The DPC again wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, seeking confirmation that this
would lead to the amicable resolution of the complaint in question. This letter issued to the
Recipient SA on 11 January 2024, and thereafter to the Data Subject on 22 January 2024. In
the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within a stated timeframe, if
they were not satisfied with the outcome, so that the DPC could take further action.
13. On 30 January 2024, the DPC received the response of the Data Subject, via the Recipient SA.
In their response, the Data Subject noted their satisfaction with the result of their complaint,
and confirmed the withdrawal of their complaint. However, in this same response, the Data
Subject also sought clarity that the email address in question was no longer associated with
any related Skype accounts.
14. Having engaged further with the Respondent regarding this concern, it confirmed to the DPC
on 9 February 2024, that the email address in question was not affiliated with any such Skype
accounts. The DPC informed the Data Subject of this, via the Recipient SA, and on 20 February
2024, the DPC received confirmation from the Data Subject that their complaint had been
withdrawn, and could be considered amicably resolved.
15. On 20 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. On 23 February 2024, the Recipient SA confirmed receipt of the DPC’s
correspondence, which had advised that the complaint was deemed withdrawn.
16. 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.
4
Confirmation of Outcome
17. 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.
18. 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
5