In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Hamburgische Beauftragte für
Datenschutz und Informationfreiheit (Hamburg DPA) pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data
Protection Regulation, concerning Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (formerly Facebook 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 7th day of June 2024
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 9 May 2020, (“the Data Subject”) initially lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 of the GDPR with the Berliner Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit
(Berlin DPA), which was subsequently forwarded to the Hamburgische Beauftragte für
Datenschutz und Informationfreiheit (Hamburg DPA) (“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) of the GDPR, the Recipient SA transferred
the complaint to the DPC on 24 August 2023.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject was notified that their Instagram account had been deactivated and
they had therefore lost access to same. On 14 March 2019, the Data Subject
consequently contacted the Respondent, seeking to regain access to the account in
question.
b. In its responses to the Data Subject, the first of which was on 14 March 2019, the
Respondent requested that the Data Subject verify their identity with them in order
to regain access to the Instagram account in question. This verification method
required the Data Subject to send a photo of themselves holding a code they received
from the Respondent. The Data Subject contested this, arguing that the account in
question did not contain any images, and as such, the Respondent would not be able
to verify account ownership in this way. The Data Subject therefore requested an
alternative means to verify ownership of their account.
c. As the Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from the
Respondent, they lodged a complaint with the Recipient SA.
d. On 13 April 2023, the Recipient SA contacted the Respondent directly on the Data
Subject’s behalf in relation to their complaint. In its response to the Recipient SA of
14 August 2023, the Respondent advised that the Data Subject’s account had been
placed in a security checkpoint, and was subsequently deactivated and permanently
deleted, for violations of the Respondent’s terms of use. The Data Subject maintained
their complaint and sought clarification as to the Respondent’s verification requests.
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
2
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
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. In its initial response of 19 October 2023, the
Respondent noted that:
a. It had verification procedures in place in order to ensure that the rightful owner of an
account regained access to the account.
b. It has other means of verifying ownership of an account that were not offered to the
Data Subject, and noted its error in failing to offer these alternatives at the time.
c. As the Instagram account in question was now permanently deleted, it could not
provide further information as to why the suspension was placed on the account in
the first instance.
3
8. The DPC thereafter provided this information to the Data Subject, via the Recipient SA, in a
letter received by the Data Subject on 24 October 2023. The DPC received a response from
the Data Subject to this letter on 6 November 2023. Within this response, the Data Subject
expressed their frustration with the Respondent’s processes, and separately requested
assistance in being able to reuse the previous username on the account. The DPC thereafter
engaged with the Respondent in relation to this request.
9. On 21 December 2023, the Respondent confirmed to the DPC that the username which the
Data Subject was requesting to reuse, had been made available once again for the Data
Subject. The DPC thereafter informed the Data Subject of this, in correspondence that issued
to them via the Recipient SA on 4 January 2024.
10. On 24 January 2024, the DPC received a further response from the Data Subject via the
Recipient SA. In this response, the Data Subject noted that they were experiencing difficulties
in assigning the username to an account on the Instagram platform. As such, on 31 January
2024, the DPC corresponded further with the Respondent in order to assist in this matter.
11. On 15 February 2024, the Respondent noted certain technical restraints were impacting the
Data Subject’s ability to reuse the desired username when creating a new account. As such, it
requested that the Data Subject create a new account on the Instagram account using any
username, and upon being notified of the account in question, its specialist team would be
able to manually amend the account’s username to that which the Data Subject had originally
desired to use.
12. The DPC issued a letter to the Recipient SA, for onward transmission to the Data Subject,
where this information and request was relayed. This letter issued to the Data Subject on 19
February 2024, and the DPC received the Data Subject’s response to this request on 26
February 2024. Upon receipt of this information, the DPC thereafter liaised further with the
Respondent to reach the desired outcome for the Data Subject.
13. In correspondence of 4 March 2024, the Respondent confirmed that its specialist team had
successfully managed to amend the identified account in question, to the desired username
as identified by the Data Subject. The Respondent confirmed that the Data Subject had access
to the account and username going forward, which may satisfy the request of the Data
Subject.
14. On 5 March 2024, the DPC’s letter outlining the action taken by the Respondent as part of the
amicable resolution process issued to the Recipient SA for onward transmission to the Data
Subject. In its correspondence to the Data Subject, the DPC requested that the Data Subject
notify it, within a specified timeframe, if they were not satisfied with the actions taken by the
Respondent, so that the DPC could take further action. The Recipient SA confirmed to the DPC
that they issued this correspondence to the Data Subject on 11 March 2024.
15. On 14 March 2024, the DPC was informed by the Recipient SA that the Data Subject was
agreeable to the amicable resolution proposal.
4
16. On 14 March 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 19 March 2024, the Recipient SA confirmed receipt of the DPC
correspondence, which had advised that the complaint was deemed withdrawn.
17. 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
18. 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.
19. 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