IMY (Sweden) - IMY-2022-1032: Difference between revisions
From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Sweden |DPA-BG-Color= |DPAlogo=LogoSE.png |DPA_Abbrevation=IMY |DPA_With_Country=IMY (Sweden) |Case_Number_Name=IMY-2022-1032 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=IMY |Original_Source_Link_1=https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/se_2023-01_decision_public_redacted_1.pdf |Original_Source_Language_1=English |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=EN |Original_Source_Name_2= |Original_Source_Link_2= |Original_Source_Language_2= |Original_Source_L...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
}} | }} | ||
In the context of an erasure request, requiring identity documents is not strictly necessary to identify a data subject and the use of regular mail does not facilitate the exercise of data subjects' right. | |||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
Two data subjects had customer relationship with Lensway (controller). | Two data subjects had customer relationship with Lensway (controller). | ||
In June 2020, the other data subject also requested the erasure of their data. | In February 2020, one of them requested the erasure of their data. To comply with the request, the controller required the data subject to provide, by regular mail, a copy of an identity document and a written and signed form. | ||
In June 2020, the other data subject also requested the erasure of their data. He was required to provide, also by regular mail, a form, a copy of an identity document and social security number. | |||
The data subjects respectively filed complaints with the supervisory authorities of Finland and Denmark which handed them over to the Swedish DPA (IMY) according to [[Article 56 GDPR|Article 56 GDPR]] in its quality of lead supervisory authority. | The data subjects respectively filed complaints with the supervisory authorities of Finland and Denmark which handed them over to the Swedish DPA (IMY) according to [[Article 56 GDPR|Article 56 GDPR]] in its quality of lead supervisory authority. | ||
| Line 83: | Line 85: | ||
=== Holding === | === Holding === | ||
Since the complaints were against the same controller, the IMY joined them. It started by reminding that under [[Article 12 GDPR#2|Article 12(2) GDPR]], the controller must facilitate the exercise of data subject rights | Since the complaints were against the same controller, the IMY joined them. It started by reminding that under [[Article 12 GDPR#2|Article 12(2) GDPR]], the controller must facilitate the exercise of data subject rights and that under [[Article 12 GDPR|Article 12(6)]], the controller can request additional information to confirm the identity of the data subject if it has reasonable doubts. | ||
First, the IMY assessed if in these two cases, the controller had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the data subjects. It held that was not entirely clear what information the data subjects provided with their request and that there was thus no reason to question the company’s doubts about the identity of the data subjects. | ''First'', the IMY assessed if in these two cases, the controller had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the data subjects. It held that was not entirely clear what information the data subjects provided with their request and that there was thus no reason to question the company’s doubts about the identity of the data subjects. | ||
Second, the IMY then examined the necessity of the information requested. Taking into account the customer relationship between the data subjects and the controller, the IMY considered that the controller cannot require more personal data for the exercise of data protection rights than when establishing a customer relationship. The IMY also referred to the EDPB guidelines on the right of access which state that the use of an identity document as part of an authentification process should be considered inappropriate unless strictly necessary under national law. In this case, the IMY held that other less intrusive means subjects (such as control questions or login on the controller’s website) could have been sufficient to identify the data. | ''Second'', the IMY then examined the necessity of the information requested. Taking into account the customer relationship between the data subjects and the controller, the IMY considered that the controller cannot require more personal data for the exercise of data protection rights than when establishing a customer relationship. The IMY also referred to the [https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/edpb_guidelines_012022_right-of-access_0.pdf EDPB guidelines on the right of access] which state that the use of an identity document as part of an authentification process should be considered inappropriate unless strictly necessary under national law. In this case, the IMY held that other less intrusive means subjects (such as control questions or login on the controller’s website) could have been sufficient to identify the data subjects. | ||
Last, the IMY analysed whether requesting the data subjects to send their information by regular mail was in line with [[Article 12 GDPR#2|Article 12(2) GDPR]]. It considered that the use of regular mail could be justifiable for reasons of security. However, in this case, provided that the identity documents were not necessary, the IMY concluded that the controller did not facilitate the exercise of the data subjects’ rights. | ''Last'', the IMY analysed whether requesting the data subjects to send their information by regular mail was in line with [[Article 12 GDPR#2|Article 12(2) GDPR]]. It considered that the use of regular mail could be justifiable for reasons of security. However, in this case, provided that the identity documents were not necessary, the IMY concluded that the controller did not facilitate the exercise of the data subjects’ rights. | ||
Taking into account that the infringements occurred far back in time, only affected two data subjects and that in the meantime, the controller stopped requesting copies of identity documents and written forms, the IMY considered that this constituted a minor infringement | Taking into account that the infringements occurred far back in time, only affected two data subjects and that in the meantime, the controller stopped requesting copies of identity documents and written forms, the IMY considered that this constituted a minor infringement and issued a reprimand. | ||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 6 June 2023
| IMY - IMY-2022-1032 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | IMY (Sweden) |
| Jurisdiction: | Sweden |
| Relevant Law: | Article 12(2) GDPR Article 12(6) GDPR Article 17 GDPR Article 56 GDPR Article 60 GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 19.01.2023 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | Lensway |
| National Case Number/Name: | IMY-2022-1032 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | English |
| Original Source: | IMY (in EN) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
In the context of an erasure request, requiring identity documents is not strictly necessary to identify a data subject and the use of regular mail does not facilitate the exercise of data subjects' right.
English Summary
Facts
Two data subjects had customer relationship with Lensway (controller).
In February 2020, one of them requested the erasure of their data. To comply with the request, the controller required the data subject to provide, by regular mail, a copy of an identity document and a written and signed form.
In June 2020, the other data subject also requested the erasure of their data. He was required to provide, also by regular mail, a form, a copy of an identity document and social security number.
The data subjects respectively filed complaints with the supervisory authorities of Finland and Denmark which handed them over to the Swedish DPA (IMY) according to Article 56 GDPR in its quality of lead supervisory authority.
In its defense, the controller stated that it could not identify the data subjects with other means. Requesting identity documents was therefore necessary to comply with the erasure requests. It added that the use of regular mail was necessary to ensure that they received the original written documentation.
Holding
Since the complaints were against the same controller, the IMY joined them. It started by reminding that under Article 12(2) GDPR, the controller must facilitate the exercise of data subject rights and that under Article 12(6), the controller can request additional information to confirm the identity of the data subject if it has reasonable doubts.
First, the IMY assessed if in these two cases, the controller had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the data subjects. It held that was not entirely clear what information the data subjects provided with their request and that there was thus no reason to question the company’s doubts about the identity of the data subjects.
Second, the IMY then examined the necessity of the information requested. Taking into account the customer relationship between the data subjects and the controller, the IMY considered that the controller cannot require more personal data for the exercise of data protection rights than when establishing a customer relationship. The IMY also referred to the EDPB guidelines on the right of access which state that the use of an identity document as part of an authentification process should be considered inappropriate unless strictly necessary under national law. In this case, the IMY held that other less intrusive means subjects (such as control questions or login on the controller’s website) could have been sufficient to identify the data subjects.
Last, the IMY analysed whether requesting the data subjects to send their information by regular mail was in line with Article 12(2) GDPR. It considered that the use of regular mail could be justifiable for reasons of security. However, in this case, provided that the identity documents were not necessary, the IMY concluded that the controller did not facilitate the exercise of the data subjects’ rights.
Taking into account that the infringements occurred far back in time, only affected two data subjects and that in the meantime, the controller stopped requesting copies of identity documents and written forms, the IMY considered that this constituted a minor infringement and issued a reprimand.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.
1(8)
Notice: This document is an unofficial translation of the
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection’s decision 2023-
01-19, no. IMY-2022-1032. Only the Swedish version of the
decision is deemed authentic.
Ref no:
IMY-2022-1032 Decision under the General Data
Protection Regulation – Lensway
Date of decision:
2023-01-19 Group AB
Decision of the Swedish Authority for Privacy
Protection
The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection finds that Lensway Group AB when
handling the request for erasure made on 20 February 2020 by the complainant in
Complaint 1, and the request for erasure made on 25 June 2020 by the complainant in
Complaint 2, has processed personal data in breach of:
• Article 12(6) GDPR by requesting a copy of the identity document and
signature when this was not necessary to confirm the identities of the
complainants; and
• Article 12(2) of the GDPR by requiring that the complainants when requesting
erasure submit information by mail in order to confirm their identities, which
did not facilitate the exercise of the complainants` right to erasure.
The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection issues a reprimand to Lensway Group
AB pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR for infringement of Articles 12(2) and
12(6) of the GDPR.
Presentation of the supervisory case
The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) has initiated supervision regarding
Lensway Group AB (the company) due to two complaints, mainly to investigate
whether Lensway Group AB has received and handled the complainants’ requests for
erasure in accordance with Articles 12 and 17 of the GDPR. The complaints have
been submitted to IMY as the lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 of the
GDPR. The handover has been made by the supervisory authority of the country
where the complainants have lodged their complaints (Finland and Denmark) in
Postal address: accordance with the provisions of the GDPR on cooperation in cross-border
Box 8114
104 20 Stockholm processing.
Website:
The case has been handled through written procedure. In view of the complaint
www.imy.se
E-mail: relating to cross-border processing, IMY has made use of the cooperation and
imy@imy.se 1
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the
Phone: protection of natural persons with regard to he processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,
08-657 61 00 and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).Privacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 2(8)
Date:2022-12-12
consistency mechanisms provided for in Chapter VII of the GDPR. The supervisory
authorities concerned have been the data protection authorities in Denmark, Norway
and Finland.
The complaints
The complainants have mainly stated the following.
Complaint 1 (Complaint from Finland with national registration number 1576/153/2020)
The complainant was in contact with the company on 20 February 2020 and requested
erasure. The company replied to the complainant that the complainant needs to send
them the postal address so that they can send the complainant documents relating to
the complainant’s request. These documents were to be signed and returned by the
complainant. In addition, the company requested the complainant to verify the identity
by sending a copy of the complainant´s identity document by e-mail. For security
reasons, the complainant was not willing to provide what was requested.
Complaint 2 (Complaint from Denmark with national registration number 2020-31-
3616)
The complainant requested erasure of the complainant´s information on lensway.dk. In
order to comply with the request, the company requested that the complainant provide
the social security number and a copy of the identity document. However, the
company could not tell the complainant why they need that information except that
they need it in order to confirm the complainant´s identity. The complainant questions
the need for the company to collect personal data in order to erase personal data. The
complainant suggested that the company could instead confirm the complainant´s
identity by sending an e-mail to the address registered on the complainant but they
refused.
What Lensway Group AB has stated
In its statements of 20 April, 12 May and 11 August 2022, the company has mainly
stated the following. The Company is the data controller concerning the processing to
which the complaints relates.
Complaint 1
The company has received the complaint’s request for erasure, but the complainant
has not completed the company´s at the time current verification process. The
company has requested the complainant to submit a copy of the identity document.
This is the only way the company has so far been able to ensure the identity of the
customer. The copy was to be sent by regular mail. The company also requested the
complainant to submit a signed request for erasure. The company has so far not been
able to receive this information digitally. In order to ensure that they have received
original documents, they have asked the complainant to submit it via regular mail.
Complaint 2
The company received the request for erasure on 25 June 2020 but the complainant
did not complete the company’s at the time current verification process. It is true that
the company requested the complainant’s social security number in the written form,
but it has been voluntary to provide this information. In addition to the information
requested in the written form, the company requested the complainant to submit aPrivacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 3(8)
Date:2022-12-12
copy of the identity document. The company has so far not been able to identify the
complainant in any other way. The complainant was asked to submit the information
by regular mail in order to ensure that the company had received the original
documents.
As regards both complaints the company has stated the following:
As regards the written form to be submitted by both complainants, the company states
the following concerning the personal data required to disclose and why the
information was necessary.
• Name is mandatory information which is requested to confirm the identity of
the data subject.
• Email address is mandatory information which is requested because it is used
as a unique identifier of customers in the company’s system.
• Signature is mandatory for the company to be able to ensure that the data
subject has read the information and has given his or her consent.
The company states that they should always ensure that it is the right person that
contacts them when it comes to requests to exercise a right under the GDPR. Since
the company was previously unable to identify the customer in a good and secure way
when they contacted the company through customer service, the manual process via
regular mail has been the one they have used. In this way, they have had a two-step
verification. Functionality to enable confirmation of the customer’s identity through
customer service has not been in place.
The customer relationship with the company can be established in two ways, either the
customer makes a purchase or the customer logs in to My Pages. When the customer
creates an account on My Pages, the customer enters their email address and an
email with confirmation is sent to the customer. The customer can then, via the link in
the email, come to a web page where they link a password to the email address. The
customer account is then created and the company thus receives a two-step
verification. The complainants used the second method by which the customer
relationship can be established.
The complainants made purchases with the company and they were identified through
the company’s payment service provided by Klarna. For most payment options, Klarna
requires the customer to verify themselves via bank ID. For certain payment methods,
for example payment by credit card, the customer may choose not to have to verify via
bank ID through Klarna’s app.
The company’s existing digital contact channel is My Pages. However, there has been
no functionality to handle requests to exercise a right under the GDPR on My Pages.
Since April 2022, the company’s customers can now request to be erasured or receive
a copy of their personal data directly via My Pages. The customer’s identity is then
verified via regular login.Privacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 4(8)
Date:2022-12-12
Statement of reasons for the decision
Applicable provisions, etc.
According to Article 17(1), the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the
controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and
the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay
where one of the grounds set out in the Article applies, for example when the personal
data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected
or if the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based.
Article 12(2) requires the controller to facilitate the exercise of data subject rights under
Articles 15 to 22.
Article 12(6) states that, without prejudice to Article 11, where the controller has
reasonable doubts concerning the identity of the natural person making the request
referred to in Articles 15 to 21, the controller may request the provision of additional
information necessary to confirm the identity of the data subject .
The European Data Protection Board’s (EDPB) Guidelines 01/2022 on access state 2
inter alia:
65. In cases where the controller requests the commission of additional information
necessary to confirm the identity of the data subject, the controller shall each time
assess what information will allow it to confirm the data subject’s identity and
possibly ask additional questions to the requesting person or request the data
subject to present some additional identification elements, if it is proportionate (see
section 3.3). Such additional information should not be more than the information
initially needed for the verification of the data subject’s identity (authentication). In
general, the fact that the controller may request additional information to assess the
data subject’s identity cannot lead to excessive demands and to the collection of
personal data which is not relevant or necessary to strengthen the link between the
individual and the personal data requested.
[...]
73. It should be emphasised that using a copy of an identity document as a part of
the authentication process creates a risk for the security of personal data and may
lead to unauthorised or unlawful processing, and as such it should be considered
inappropriate, unless it is strictly necessary, suitable, and in line with national law.
In such cases the controllers should have systems in place that ensure a level of
security appropriate to mitigate the higher risks for the rights and freedoms of the
data subject to receive such data. It is also important to note that identification by
means of an identity card does not necessarily help in the online context (e.g. with
the use of pseudonyms) if the person concerned cannot contribute any other
evidence, e.g. further characteristics matching to the user account.
2EDPB, Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights — Right of access, Version 1.0. The guidelines have been out for
public consultation and are awaiting final adoption.Privacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 5(8)
Date:2022-12-12
Assessment of IMY
On the basis of the complaints in question, IMY has examined the company’s conduct
in these two individual cases.
Has the company acted in accordance with 12(6) of the General Data Protection
Regulation when the company requested current information from the
complainants?
Has Lensway Group had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the
complainants?
It is only when the controller has reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the
person making the request that additional information to confirm the identity may be
requested. What constitutes “reasonable grounds” in Article 12(6) GDPR should be
assessed on the basis of the circumstances in the individual case. The assessment of
whether there are reasonable grounds in an individual case to doubt the identity of the
one requesting is normally made in the light of the information provided in connection
with the request. This applies particularly in situations where the controller has no
further knowledge of the person. However, the need for an individual assessment does
not preclude the establishment of routines for how the controller normally verifies the
identity of the data subject.
The company was given the opportunity to motivate the individual assessment made
based on the complainants’ situation if they considered that they had reasonable
doubts as to the identity of the complainants when the complainants submitted their
requests. With regard to both complainants, the company argues mainly as follows.
The company should always ensure that it is the right person that contact them when it
comes to requests to exercise a right under the GDPR. The customer has not
previously been able to be identified in a good and secure manner when they
contacted the company through Customer Service. Functionality for handling requests
to exercise a right under the GDPR has not been available through Customer Service
or on My Pages.
IMY notes that it is not clear from the investigation in the case what information the
complainants provided in connection with their request and whether there were
reasons for the company to doubt their identity on the basis of those requests.
However, IMY considers that, in light of what has emerged in the case, there is no
need to question the company´s statement that it had reason to doubt the identity of
the complainants. In the assessment, IMY takes into consideration the fact that the
obligation to ensure the identity of the one requesting also is intended to protect data
subjects against someone else making requests in their name, which may lead to
negative consequences for the data subject. The risks of these negative
consequences in the event of false requests are particularly obvious in the case of
more invasive measures, such as the exercise of the right to erasure. IMY therefore
takes the view that it has not been shown other than that the company, in the present
cases, have had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the complainants.
Has the information requested by the Lensway Group been necessary to confirm the
identity of the complainants?Privacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 6(8)
Date:2022-12-12
Although the controller has reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the data
subjects, the controller shall not collect more personal data than is necessary to
enable the confirmation of the identity of the requesting data subject.
The company mainly states the following concerning the necessity of the information
they have requested from both complainants. A copy of the identity document has
been requested as it was the only way in which the company has so far been able to
verify the identity of the customer. In addition to a copy of the identity document, the
complainants were required to submit a written form. The information requested in the
written form and why it was necessary is presented by the company in essence as
follows. The name has been requested to confirm the identity of the data subject. The
email address has been requested because it is used as a unique identifier of
customers in the company’s system. The signature has also been requested and is,
according to the company, a necessary information for the company to be able to
ensure that the data subject has read the information and given his or her consent to
the handling of the request.
As regards the verification of the identity of the complainants, the company states that
both complainants made purchases where they were identified through the company’s
payment service provided by Klarna.
It appears from the company’s statements that it was not required that the company
itself verified the identity of the complainants when the customer relationship was
established, i.e. at the time of purchase. IMY states that the company cannot require
more personal data when the complainant wishes to exercise its rights than was
required when establishing the customer relationship. A copy of the identity document
and signature is information that the company has not requested at the establishment
of the customer relationship in these two cases. Furthermore, IMY takes into account
that, according to the EDPB Guidelines on the right of access, the use of a copy of an
identity document as part of the authentication process should be considered
inappropriate, unless strictly necessary, suitable and in line with national law. IMY
considers that the requirement to provide the controller with a copy of its identity
document is an intrusive measure, which is only appropriate where the controller has
previously ensured the actual identity of the data subject and where alternative less
intrusive means of verification are inappropriate. IMY considers that there have been
no circumstances identified that speak against that other, less intrusive, verification
methods could have been used in the present cases, such as login via My Pages or
control questions. IMY notes that it has therefore not appeared in the case that the
request for a copy of the identity document or the signature would have been
absolutely necessary or appropriate.
Against this background, IMY considers that the copy of the identity document and the
signature cannot therefore be considered to have been necessary to confirm the
identity of the complainants in accordance with Article 12(6) of the GDPR.
Has the company acted in accordance with 12(2) of the General Data Protection
Regulation when the company requested the complainants to send the
information by mail?
The next question is whether it has been permissible to require the complainants to
send the requested information to the company by regular mail.Privacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 7(8)
Date:2022-12-12
In view of the requirements to facilitate the exercise of the data subject’s rights in
Article 12(2) GDPR, it can only be accepted in exceptional cases that a controller as
the sole channel of contact refers individuals to ordinary mail if they have to submit
information in order to ensure their identities, for example if it is justifiable for reasons
of security. The starting point should be that alternative means of submitting requested
information should be offered. In that regard, the company has mainly stated that it
required the information to be sent by regular mail in order to ensure that they received
the original written documentation.
IMY takes the view that the transmission of a copy of an identity document may indeed
pose particular risks, which may justify requiring that the document be sent by mail.
This provided that it is necessary information to confirm the identity of the data subject.
In the present cases, IMY concludes above that a copy of the identity document was
not necessary to confirm the identity of the complainants. By requiring the
complainants additionally to send the information by regular mail, IMY takes the view
that the company did not facilitate for the complainants to exercise their right to
erasure. IMY therefore considers that the company thereby acted in breach of Article
12(2) of the GDPR.
Choice of corrective measure
It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that IMY has the power to
impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending on the
circumstances of the case, administrative fines shall be imposed in addition to or in
place of the other measures referred to in Article 58(2), such as injunctions and
prohibitions. Furthermore, Article 83(2) determines the factors to be taken into account
when imposing administrative fines and when determining the amount of the fine. In
the case of a minor infringement, IMY may, as stated in recital 148, instead of
imposing a fine, issue a reprimand pursuant to Article 58(2)(b). Account needs to be
taken to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case, such as the nature,
gravity and duration of the infringement as well as past infringements of relevance.
IMY notes the following relevant facts. It has emerged from the investigation in the
case that a copy of an identity document and signature is no longer requested by
Lensway Group AB upon requests from data subjects to exercise their right to erasure
under the GDPR. Furthermore, the infringements found have occurred relatively far
back in time (2020) and have affected two data subjects. Against this background, IMY
considers that it is a minor infringement within the meaning of recital 148 and that
Lensway Group AB must be given a reprimand pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the
GDPR.
___________________________________________________
This decision has been taken by the specially appointed decision-maker, legal advisor
, following a presentation by legal advisoPrivacy Protection Authority Our ref: IMY-2022-1032 8(8)
Date:2022-12-12
How to appeal
If you wish to appeal IMY:s decision, please write to IMY. Please indicate in your letter
the decision you are appealing and the amendment that you are requesting. The
appeal must reach IMY no later than three weeks from the date on which you received
the decision. If the appeal has been received in due time, IMY forwards it to the
Administrative Court in Stockholm for trial.
You can send the appeal by email to IMY if the appeal does not contain any sensitive
personal data or information that may be subject to confidentiality. IMY:s contact
details are set out in the first page of the decision.
