In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Estonian Data Protection
Inspectorate (Estonian 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 6th day of September 2024
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 77 of the GDPR with
the Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate (“the Recipient SA”), concerning Meta Platforms
Ireland Limited (formerly Facebook 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 9 November 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject’s account on the Facebook platform was taken over by a third-party
bad actor in 2020, and as such, the Data Subject contacted the Respondent requesting
erasure of the account in question. Within their correspondence with the
Respondent, the Data Subject noted that they continued to receive correspondence
related to the account via their email address, although the responses were in French,
a language they did not speak. As part of their request, the Data Subject also
submitted copies of their ID to the Respondent, to verify the account belonged to
them.
b. In its initial response to the Data Subject of 30 November 2020, the Respondent noted
that the Data Subject had provided too many attachments when submitting their ID
preventing the Respondent from accessing the files, and requested that the Data
Subject submit just a copy of their ID again. The Data Subject thereafter attempted to
submit their ID to verify their identity on numerous occasions, but the verification was
not successful. The Recipient SA later engaged with the Respondent on the Data
Subject’s behalf, to try to obtain the erasure of the account.
c. In its response to the Recipient SA of 13 February 2023, the Respondent noted that
the account in question had been disabled, rather than deleted. The Respondent
requested that the Data Subject provide a new secure email address in an effort to
secure and then delete the account, although the Data Subject refused this request.
d. As the Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from the
Respondent, they maintained that they wished to continue their 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
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 to the DPC of 7 February 2024,
the Respondent provided the following information:
a. It confirmed that, through its engagement with the Data Subject on foot of the DPC
commencing this complaint, it had assisted the Data Subject in clearing the relevant
security checkpoints in place on the account. As such, the Respondent noted that the
Data Subject had regained access to the account, and that the account had been
scheduled for deletion by the Data Subject, with this deletion process initiating on 10
February 2024, while noting that this process may take up to 90-days to complete.
b. It confirmed that it requested a new, secure email address from the Data Subject in
order to secure the account in question, and to assist them with regaining access to
their Facebook Account, in order to utilise the self-service deletion tools.
3
c. It confirmed that the location of the third-party bad actor who had taken over the
account had been detected as being in France, which is why its systems provided
responses to the Data Subject in French.
8. On foot of this correspondence, the DPC issued a letter outlining the information provided by
the Respondent, querying whether the information provided, as well as the action taken by
the Respondent, were sufficient to amicably resolve their complaint, as the account in
question was now scheduled for deletion. This letter was sent to the Recipient SA on 9
February 2024, for onward transmission to the Data Subject. The Recipient SA thereafter
confirmed that it issued the DPC’s letter to the Data Subject on 19 February 2024. This letter
requested a response from the Data Subject within a specified timeframe if they objected to
the amicable resolution of their complaint.
9. The Data Subject responded on 19 February 2024 to the Recipient SA, which was received by
the DPC on 21 February 2024. Within their response, the Data Subject queried why the
deletion process would take 90 days to complete. The DPC thereafter engaged with the
Respondent in relation to these concerns.
10. The DPC received a response from the Respondent to this query on 12 March 2024, within
which it noted that the account had been fully deleted as of 23 February 2024. It provided
information in respect of this general 90-day deletion period, clarifying that it is in place due
to the technical processes involved, and that account deletion is not capable of being
instantaneous.
11. The DPC’s letter outlining the information provided as part of amicable resolution process was
sent to the Recipient SA on 8 April 2024, for onward transmission to the Data Subject. The
Recipient SA thereafter sent the DPC’s letter to the Data Subject on 8 May 2024. This letter
requested a response from the Data Subject within a specified timeframe, if they objected to
the amicable resolution of their complaint. On 6 June 2024, the Recipient SA confirmed that
the Data Subject provided no further response.
12. On 11 June 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.
13. 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
14. For the purpose of Document 06/2022, the DPC confirms that:
4
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.
15. 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