IMY (Sweden) - DI-2019-6696

From GDPRhub
IMY - DI-2019-6696
LogoSE.png
Authority: IMY (Sweden)
Jurisdiction: Sweden
Relevant Law: Article 12(1) GDPR
Article 12(3) GDPR
Article 15(1) GDPR
Article 15(2) GDPR
Article 15(3) GDPR
Article 60 GDPR
Type: Investigation
Outcome: Violation Found
Started:
Decided:
Published: 13.06.2023
Fine: 58000000 SEK
Parties: Spotify AB
National Case Number/Name: DI-2019-6696
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Swedish
Original Source: IMY (sweden) (in SV)
Initial Contributor: n/a

Spotify was fined SEK58,000,000 (approx. €5,000,000) for insufficiently addressing access requests. Also, Spotify was reprimanded and ordered to comply with a user's access request. It was not sufficient under Article 15(1) GDPR that the information was available in Spotify’s privacy policy.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

Background

Following a complaint filed by noyb, in January 2019, as well as, complaints from the Netherlands and Denmark against Spotify AB (Spotify) regarding the right of access under Article 15 GDPR, the Swedish DPA initiated an ex officio investigation on whether Spotify’s general practices for handling access requests comply with the GDPR.

After 3 years of inactivity from the DPA, noyb sought remedy under Article 78(2) GDPR from the Stockholm Administrative Court, which eventually sided with noyb. As a result, the DPA has now finally issued a decision on noyb’s complaint, as well as, the other complaints filed against Spotify simultaneously with the DPA’s ex officio investigation. Since Spotify operates in several EU Member States, the DPA applied the cooperation and consistency mechanisms set out in Chapter VII GDPR.

The complaint brought by noyb was identified as ‘complaint 2’, and the complaint from the Netherlands as ‘complaint 1’. The complaint from Denmark was eventually rejected, because the investigation of the case did not show that Spotify has failed in its handling of the complainant's request for access.

Facts on Spotify’s general procedures for handling access requests (ex officio investigation)

With regard to Spotify's general practices on handling access requests, Spotify provides information required by Article 15(1)(a)-(h) and 15(2) GDPR via an online function. When Spotify provides a copy of personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR it includes a file called "Read me first" to each copy of data with a link to the information.

Moreover, Spotify provides a copy of personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR by dividing the information to three different layers: “Type 1” that consists profile information, “Type 2” that consists technical log files linked to the data subjects' user IDs and “Type3” that consists information specifically requested by a data subject. Spotify provides the information in JSON format.

Facts on individual complaints that triggered the DPA’s ex officio investigation

Complaint 1

The complainant had made an access request, on 27 May 2018, under Article 15 GDPR to Spotify, and contacted Spotify later again, as the complainant themself noticed that the information provided by Spotify was incomplete. Spotify thereafter provided the remaining data. The data was provided to the complainant in JSON format. Some of the technical log files were provided encrypted which Spotify, during the DPA's investigation, claimed to have been a mistake.

The complainant argued that 1) Spotify did not provide the personal data in due time under Article 12(3) GDPR and 2) that the data was not provided in an intelligible form as required by Article 12(1) GDPR.

Complaint 2

The complainant made an access request, on 10 Oct 2018, under Article 15 GDPR to Spotify by using Spotify's "Download your data" feature that provided the "Type 1" information. The "Type 1" data was provided to the complainant in JSON format. The complainant did not return to Spotify for further information.

It was argued by the complainant that 1) Spotify had not provided all of the personal data that Spotify processes about them, 2) Spotify had not provided any of the information as required by Article 15(1)(a)-(h) and 15(2) GDPR, and that 3) Spotify had not provided the personal data in an intelligible form as required by Article 12(1) GDPR. At the time of the complainant’s request, Spotify had not yet implemented its practice - mentioned above - where Spotify includes the “Read me first” file to its responses to access requests. Such information was available only in Spotify’s privacy policy, at the time.

Holding[edit | edit source]

Holding with regard to the ex officio investigation on Spotify’s general procedures for handling access requests

Spotify’s practices, with regard to providing the information via an online tool, were found to be sufficient in ensuring that information in accordance with Article 15 GDPR was provided to its users. However, the DPa emphasized that such information must be formulated, in a way, that it fulfils the purpose of the right of access. This means that such information must ensure that i. the data subject is aware of the processing and ii. can verify its lawfulness. Furthermore, the DPA noted that such information must also be provided in a way that fulfils the transparency requirements of Article 12(1) GDPR.

Essentially, the DPA found that Spotify should have taken steps to adapt the information to a user’s specific situation in order for the data subject to be able to verify the lawfulness of the processing concerning them. This was not the case with Spotify’s practices, as it provided the same information to users regardless of who requested access. Moreover, the DPA found that the information provided by Spotify was not concise, clear and transparent, nor easily accessible, because the information was of a general nature or too imprecise for a data subject to understand. In this respect, Spotify was found to be in breach of the Articles Articles 15(1)(a)-(d) and (g), and Article 15(2) GDPR as well as Article 12(1) GDPR.

Since a data subject has to take different actions to request the different layers of data, the DPA considered it may cause some inconvenience to the data subject. However, Spotify's practices in this respect did not violate Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR because the DPA considered that the data subject has the possibility to take all these actions at the same, if requested directly through Spotify's customer service. After an overall assessment, DPA concluded that Spotify's general procedures allow data subjects to request access in a sufficiently simple manner.

The DPA found that design and format used by Spotify generally meets the transparency requirements of Article 12(1) GDPR, but noted that Spotify provides by default the detailed description of the data in the technical log files only in English. It follows from Article 12(1) of the GDPR that the information provided under Article 15 GDPR must be given in a concise, clear and plain, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.

The DPA held that description of the data in the technical log files provided by Spotify did not fulfill the requirements of Article 12(1) GDPR, as such information was provided by default only in English. In this respect, Spotify was found to be in breach of Article 12(1) GDPR.

As a result of the investigation, Spotify was issued with a fine of approx. 5 000 000 EUR (58 000 000 SEK) as a result of its infringements.

Holdings on the individual complaints (Complaint 1, and Complaint 2)

Complaint 1

As was raised already in the ex officio investigation, the DPA found it possible to split the information into different layers, provided that the data subject has been sufficiently informed (how the copy of personal data is split and how access to the different layers can be requested).

As a result, the DPA found that Spotify, at the time of the complainant's access request, did not provide sufficiently clear information for the complainant to understand that the copy of personal data was disaggregated. Given the lack of information in that regard at the time of the complainant's request, Spotify should have disclosed all the personal data it processed about the complainant after the complainant’s initial access request. Furthermore, Spotify should have provided an explanation for the data provided in encrypted form. The complainant's possibility to contact customer service and request additional information was considered irrelevant by the DPA, as it found such behaviour presupposing that the complainant would understand that there was additional personal data to be disclosed.

Spotify breached Articles 12(1), 15(1), and 15(3) GDPR by failing to provide all of the complainant's personal data in an intelligible form. Furthermore, Spotify breached Article 12(3) GDPR by providing the copy of personal data too late. The DPA issued Spotify a reprimand.

Complaint 2

Likewise in Complaint 1, the DPA noted that it is possible to divide the copy of personal data into different layers, provided that the data subject has been sufficiently informed on how to request all data.

After assessing the information provided by Spotify, at the time of the complainant's access request, the DPA found that it was not sufficiently clear for the complainant to understand that only a subset of the personal data was covered by the request. Furthermore, the DPA considered irrelevant that the complainant could have, as claimed by Spotify, contacted Spotify's customer service requesting additional information.

The DPA highlighted, inter alia, that when it is unclear whether the request relates only to a part of the personal data, the controller should assume that the data subject wishes to have access to all their personal data.

Eventually, the DPA held that Spotify breached Articles 15(1) and 15(3) GDPR by failing to provide access to all personal data processed by Spotify about the complainant. Furthermore, Spotify was found to breach Articles 15(1)(a)-(h) and 15(2) GDPR by failing to provide any of the information listed in those provisions. It was not sufficient that information was available in Spotify’s privacy policy at the time of the complainant's request.

However, the DPA considered that JSON format is currently an electronic commonly used format referred to in Article 15(3) GDPR. The DPA issued Spotify a reprimand, and ordered Spotify to comply with the complainant's access request and provide the complainant with the remaining information.

Comment[edit | edit source]

Share your comments here!

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]

The decision below is a machine translation of the Swedish original. Please refer to the Swedish original for more details.

1(30)






                                                                           Spotify AB

                                                                           Regeringsgatan 19
                                                                           11153 Stockholm






Diary number:
                                  Decision after supervision according to
DI-2019-6696

                                  data protection regulation - Spotify AB

Date:
2023-06-12




                                  Table of Contents


                                  The Privacy Protection Authority's decision................................................... ............................3

                                          Spotify's general procedures for handling requests for access............................3

                                          Review of individual complaints................................................... ..........................3

                                  1 Description of the supervisory matter ............................................... .....................................5
                                  2 Applicable regulations................................................... ............................................6

                                  3 Spotify's general procedures for handling requests for access - Justification of decisions
                                   ................................................... ................................................ ...................................7

                                          3.1 Information - article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation................7

                                                 3.1.1 What emerged in the case ........................................... ..............7

                                                 3.1.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment...................................8

                                          3.2 The right to access personal data and a copy of personal data under
                                          processing - article 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation............................12

                                                 3.2.1 What has emerged in the case............................................. .......12

                                                 3.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment...................................15

                                  4 Review of individual complaints - Reasons for decisions............................................. ..20

                                          4.1 Complaint 1 (from the Netherlands with national reference number z2018-
                                          28415)................................................ ................................................ ..............20

                                                 4.1.1 Background................................................... ..........................................20
                                                 4.1.2 What has emerged in the case............................................. .......20

                                                 4.1.3 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment...................................22

Postal address: 4.2 Complaint 2 (from Austria with national reference number D130.198) ......23
Box 8114
104 20 Stockholm 4.2.1 Background............................................ ............................................23
Website:
www.imy.se 4.2.2 What has emerged in the matter................................. ............23

E-mail: 4.2.3 Assessment by the Privacy Protection Authority...................................24
imy@imy.se 4.3 Complaint 3 (from Denmark with national reference number 2018-31-1198)26
Phone:
                                  5 Choice of intervention................................................... ................................................... .......26
08-657 61 00 The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 2(30)
                                   Date: 2023-06-12







                                           5.1 Applicable regulations................................................... ............................26

                                           5.2 Same or connected data processing...................................27

                                           5.3 Deficiencies in information according to article 15.1 and 15.2 of the data protection regulation
                                           and in the description of the data in the technical log files............................27

                                           5.4 Violations regarding complaints 1 and 2 ........................................... .......29 The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 3(30)
                               Date: 2023-06-12






                               The Privacy Protection Authority's decision


                               Spotify's general procedures for handling requests for access


                               The Swedish Privacy Protection Authority states that Spotify AB (556703-7485) under
                               the period from and including 16 November 2021 to and including 16 May 2022 in the
                                                                                                                    1
                               information that must be provided according to article 15.1 and 15.2 of the data protection regulation does not
                               provided sufficiently clear information about


                               – the purposes of the processing,
                               – categories of personal data to which the processing applies,
                               – categories of recipients of the personal data,

                               – the foreseen periods during which personal data will be stored or, if
                                   this is not possible, the criteria used to determine this period,
                               - where personal data comes from,

                               - appropriate protective measures when personal data is transferred to third countries.

                               The Privacy Protection Authority further notes that Spotify AB during the period from

                               and with June 11, 2019 through May 16, 2022 by default
                               do not provide the description of the data in the technical log files in English
                               has met the requirements that all communications provided to the data subject pursuant to

                               Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation shall be clear and understandable in the manner specified in
                               article 12.1 of the data protection regulation.


                               Spotify AB has thus processed personal data in violation of articles 12.1, 15.1 a-d,
                               15.1 g and 15.2 of the data protection regulation.


                               The Privacy Protection Authority decides with the support of articles 58.2 and 83 i
                               the data protection regulation that Spotify AB must pay an administrative fee for these shortcomings
                               sanction fee of 58,000,000 (fifty-eight million) kroner.


                               Review of individual complaints


                               The Swedish Data Protection Authority notes with regard to complaint 1 that Spotify AB in its
                               handling of the appellant's request for access made on 27 May 2018 has
                               processed personal data in violation of

                               - Article 12.3 of the Data Protection Regulation, in that the copy of personal data has
                                   left too late,
                               - articles 12.1, 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation, by in that copy on

                                   personal data provided by Spotify AB has not been provided to all of the complainants
                                   personal data in an understandable form.


                               The Swedish Data Protection Authority notes with regard to complaint 2 that Spotify AB in its
                               handling of the complainant's access request made on 10 October 2018 has
                               processed personal data in violation of


                               - articles 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation, by in that copy on
                                   personal data provided by Spotify AB has not given access to all

                                   personal data that Spotify AB processed about the complainant,


                               1 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with
                               regarding the processing of personal data and on the free flow of such data and on the cancellation of
                               directive 95/46/EC (general data protection regulation). The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 4(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12







                                - articles 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation, by not having
                                   provided any of the information specified in these regulations.


                                The Swedish Data Protection Authority gives Spotify AB a reprimand according to article 58.2 b i

                                the data protection regulation for the deficiencies regarding complaints 1 and 2.


                                The Swedish Privacy Protection Authority orders Spotify AB according to article 58.2
                                c in the data protection regulation that regarding complaint 2 no later than one month after this

                                decision gained legal force accommodate the appellant's request for access by, with
                                subject to any applicable exceptions in Article 15.4 of the Data Protection Regulation and

                                5 ch. data protection law, give the complainant access to all personal data that
                                Spotify will process the complainant by providing the complainant with a copy of

                                the personal data according to 15.3 and provide information according to articles 15.1 a-h and

                                15.2.

























































                                2
                                3 The complainant's identification information appears in Appendix 1
                                 The Act (2018:218) with supplementary provisions to the EU's data protection regulation. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 5(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12







                                1 Description of the supervisory matter


                                The Swedish Data Protection Authority (IMY) has, in the light of IMY having taken note of
                                complaints directed against Spotify AB (Spotify) regarding the right of access pursuant to Article 15 i
                                data protection regulation, initiated supervision of Spotify with the aim of investigating the company's way of

                                handling the data subject's request for access is in accordance with the data protection regulation
                                regulations. IMY has initially reviewed the company's general procedures upon request
                                about access and not what existed in the individual complaints. The review has

                                been focused on whether the company's processes and routines to provide access according to article
                                15 on a general level enables data subjects to gain access to the personal data

                                the company processes them and other information according to the provision. With
                                registered refers in this context to the customers who use Spotify's services and
                                not other categories of data subjects, e.g. employees of Spotify.


                                Within the scope of this review, IMY has not checked which personal data
                                Spotify processes and if all of these are issued with each individual request. For example

                                has any comparison between Spotify's records of processing pursuant to Article 30 i
                                the data protection regulation and the personal data included in the copy of personal data

                                according to Article 15.3 of the data protection regulation has not been done. IMY also does not have within the framework
                                for this supervision reviewed whether Spotify's personal data processing otherwise complies
                                the provisions of the data protection regulation, e.g. regarding basic principles and

                                legal basis for the processing.

                                The supervisory case was initiated with a supervisory letter on 11 June 2019. Response to

                                the supervisory letter was received on July 31, 2019. On October 16, 2019, a request was sent
                                about completion in the case. Answer received on November 15, 2019. Spotify has subsequently
                                on his own initiative received further additions on 25 August 2020 for the purpose

                                to inform IMY of updates regarding procedures for handling requests for
                                access.


                                Spotify is an organization with operations and users in several EU member states.
                                In consideration of the fact that the case is cross-border, IMY has applied the mechanisms for

                                cooperation and uniformity found in Chapter VII of the Data Protection Regulation. Every
                                data protection authorities in the EU have been concerned supervisory authorities in this case. With
                                reason for the mechanisms of cooperation and uniformity, and the need for a
                                                                             4
                                harmonized complaint handling within the EU, the IMY extended in November 2020 the
                                ongoing general supervision to also include what existed in three individuals
                                complaints, which also include the complaints that were initially the basis for

                                the supervision of the general routines.


                                On November 5, 2020, IMY requested that Spotify explain its approach to them
                                deficiencies alleged in the complaints and what steps Spotify has taken to respond
                                on the respective request for access. Spotify has responded to IMY's request on 18

                                December 2020. Spotify has subsequently submitted supplementary statements, on 15
                                April 2021 in response to supplementary questions that IMY asked on March 24, 2021 as well as
                                on 31 August 2021 in response to questions raised by IMY on 9 July 2021.




                                4
                                 In 2020, the data protection authorities worked together to determine common working methods with
                                the handling of complaints, which resulted in internal guidance that was established in February 2021. From that
                                end the complaints with a standard response, IMY now makes an individual assessment of each complaint. Internal EDPB
                                Document 02/2021 on SA's duties in relation to alleged GDPR infringements, adopted February 2, 2021. Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 6(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                On October 19, 2021, another request for completion was sent regarding
                                Spotify's general procedures. Answer received on 12 November 2021. On 8 June and 17

                                In October 2022, Spotify has, on its own initiative, submitted further additions in
                                purpose of informing IMY about updates regarding routines for handling the request
                                about access.


                                Spotify has commented on IMY's draft decision on 20 December 2022. IMY has
                                then provided the other relevant supervisory authorities with the opportunity to comment accordingly

                                Article 60 of the Data Protection Regulation. The French data protection authority has thereby
                                expressed a relevant and reasoned objection to IMY's draft decision. Spotify has
                                on March 13, 2023, an opportunity has been prepared to comment on the objection and IMY's revised

                                draft decision. Spotify's response was received on April 11, 2023.

                                Against the background of the above, the supervisory case includes an examination of

                                Spotify's general routines for handling requests for access, partly a review of
                                what existed in the three complaints. The general routines regarding the provision
                                of personal data according to article 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation which

                                reviewed are those that have been in force since IMY's supervision began on 11 June 2019
                                up to and including 16 May 2022. Regarding the information according to Article 15.1 and 15.2 of
                                the data protection regulation that must be provided when a request for access has Spotify

                                updated it several times since supervision began. IMY has therefore limited its
                                review to the information that was valid during the period from 16
                                November 2021 through May 16, 2022. 5



                                2 Applicable regulations

                                According to Article 15.1 of the data protection regulation, the data subject has the right to of it

                                personal data controller receive confirmation as to whether personal data concerning him
                                or her is being processed and in that case gain access to the personal data and
                                information about


                                   a) The purposes of the processing.
                                   b) The categories of personal data to which the processing applies.

                                   c) The recipients or categories of recipients to whom the personal data has
                                       provided or to be provided, especially recipients in third countries and international
                                       organizations.

                                   d) If possible, the anticipated period during which the personal data will
                                       stored, or if this is not possible, the criteria used to determine
                                       this period.

                                   e) The existence of the right to request correction from the personal data controller or
                                       deletion of the personal data or restrictions on processing of
                                       personal data relating to the data subject or to object to such

                                       treatment.
                                   f) The right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority.
                                   g) If the personal data is not collected from the data subject, all available

                                       information about where this data comes from.
                                   h) The existence of automated decision-making including profiling according to
                                       article 22.1 and 22.4, whereby at least in these cases it must be left meaningful




                                5See Spotify's information according to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation in Appendix 2. Of the information, which was printed by
                                IMY on 16 May 2022, it appears that the current website was last updated on 16 November 2021. The time period for
                                the review is therefore set for the period from and including November 16, 2021 to and including May 16, 2022. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 7(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12





                                       information about the logic behind as well as the meaning and the anticipated consequences of

                                       such treatment for the data subject.

                                Article 15.2 of the data protection regulation states that if the personal data is transferred to a
                                third country or to an international organisation, the data subject shall have the right to

                                information on the appropriate protective measures that have been taken in accordance with Article 46
                                at the time of transfer.


                                It follows from Article 15.3 of the data protection regulation that the person in charge of personal data must
                                provide the data subject with a copy of the personal data that is being processed.
                                Furthermore, it appears that if the request is made in electronic form, the information must, if not
                                otherwise requested, provided in an electronic format that is generally used.


                                Recital 63 of the data protection regulation states, as far as relevant, the following:


                                       The data subject should have the right to access personal data that has been collected
                                       this as well as being able to exercise this right in a simple way and at reasonable intervals, for
                                       to be aware that treatment is taking place and to be able to check that it is
                                       legal. (…) All data subjects should therefore have the right to be informed and notified

                                       above all, for what purposes the personal data is processed, if possible which
                                       time period the processing is in progress, who receives the personal data,
                                       underlying logic in connection with automatic processing of personal data
                                       and, at least when the processing is based on profiling, the consequences of

                                       such treatment. (…)

                                It also follows from Article 12.1 of the data protection regulation that it

                                personal data controller must take appropriate measures to ensure that all communications given
                                to the registered under Article 15 must be in a concise, clear and clear, understandable and
                                easily accessible form, using clear and unambiguous language.


                                It follows from Article 12.2 of the data protection regulation that the person in charge of personal data must
                                facilitate the exercise of the data subject's right of access under Article 15.

                                According to Article 12.3 of the Data Protection Regulation, the personal data controller must

                                request, without undue delay and in any case no later than one month after
                                having received the request, provide the registered information about the actions
                                which was taken in accordance with Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation. This period may if necessary

                                be extended by a further two months, taking into account the complexity of the request
                                and the number of requests received. The personal data controller must notify it
                                registered for such an extension within one month of the receipt of the request
                                and state the reasons for the delay.


                                3 Spotify's general procedures for handling

                                request for access - Justification of decision


                                3.1 Information - article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 i

                                data protection regulation

                                3.1.1 What emerged in the matter
                                In summary, Spotify has stated the following. Spotify provides information in

                                in accordance with article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation via an online function.
                                This function is available in 21 different languages and those who visit the page will The Danish Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 8(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                automatically to be given the information in language based on language settings in their
                                browser.


                                Registrants who exercise their right of access are informed about the function in several ways. IN

                                each copy of personal data provided pursuant to Article 15.3 i
                                data protection regulation, a link to the information is included. The information also goes
                                to find online, partly in the list of available functions on the company's page for "Integrity &

                                Security" partly via the answer to the question "Where can I find information about Spotify's processing
                                of personal data that Spotify is obliged to provide under Article 15 of the GDPR?”
                                on the company's page for "Personal data rights and privacy settings".


                                In the information according to Article 15 of the data protection regulation that Spotify submitted
                                the period from and including 16 November 2021 to and including 16 May 2022, as IMY

                                taken note of, Spotify provided, among other things, information about the purpose of treatment (article
                                15.1 a), which categories of personal data are processed (Article 15.1 b), recipients
                                or categories of recipients (Article 15.1 c) and the source of the personal data (Article 15.1

                                g). In addition to that, the information according to Article 15 also contained information about
                                international transfers (Article 15.2), criteria for how long the personal data
                                saved (Article 15.1 d), what rights the data subject has (Article 15.1 e), the right to

                                submit a complaint to the data protection authority (Article 15.1 f), automated
                                decision-making (Article 15.1 h) and the possibility of obtaining a copy of personal data.


                                In the information pursuant to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation, Spotify also informed
                                that the processing of personal data is described in more detail in the company's

                                privacy policy, which could also be accessed through a direct link. In the privacy policy can be found
                                including descriptions of the categories of personal data that Spotify processes.


                                Spotify has stated that all questions that are not answered by the information according to Article 15 i
                                the data protection regulation or which has not been explained to the user in one
                                satisfactory manner is promptly escalated to the company's data protection team. In that way,

                                the company states, the data protection team is made aware of, and given the opportunity to respond,
                                questions about clarifications or requests for more individualized information about
                                the processing of personal data according to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                3.1.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment
                                IMY states that Spotify's function for information according to Article 15 i

                                the data protection regulation during the period that is the subject of review existed
                                available on several different pages on Spotify's website. Furthermore, a link to was included

                                the information in the "Read me first" file that was attached to each copy of personal data
                                which was provided to the data subject in accordance with Article 15.3 i
                                the data protection regulation in case of a request for access. IMY assesses with that in mind

                                above that Spotify's routines during the relevant period were sufficient to
                                ensure that information according to Article 15 was provided to the data subject at each
                                access request.


                                IMY further notes that Spotify's information according to Article 15 i
                                the data protection regulation covered all the points of information that according to article

                                15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation must be provided to the data subject. For
                                that the information must meet the requirements set in the data protection regulation must





                                6 See appendix 2 The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 9(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12







                                however, the information is also designed in such a way that the purpose of the right of access
                                is fulfilled.


                                The purpose of the right of access is for the data subject to be aware that
                                processing takes place and be able to check that it is legal, which is evident from reason 63 to

                                data protection regulation. For example, a registered person must be able to check
                                which categories of data are processed about him or her, for which purposes
                                and for how long. So that the registered person can check if

                                the processing of personal data is legal, he or she must know which treatments are
                                are relevant in his or her specific case. The information provided must hereunder

                                provided in a manner that meets the requirements for transparency in Article 12.1 i
                                data protection regulation.


                                Against the background of the purpose of the right of access, there is often a need to
                                adapt the content of the information according to Article 15.1 and 15.2 i

                                the data protection regulation to the data subject who has made the request, for example
                                depending on which of the personal data controller's services the data subject has
                                chosen to use. However, this does not apply to all parts of the information. While the right to enter

                                complaints to a supervisory authority (Article 15.1 f of the Data Protection Regulation) not
                                changes depending on who requests access, other information may vary depending

                                on which service the data subject uses, for example which categories of
                                personal data processed, recipient and from where personal data was collected.
                                The same applies to information about whether a transfer has taken place to a third country and if so

                                what appropriate protective measures have been taken during the transfer.

                                In order for the data subject to have the opportunity to check that the processing concerns

                                him or her is legal it is therefore required, in accordance with what is stated above, that
                                Spotify must have taken measures to adapt the information to that of the registrant
                                                    7
                                specific situation.

                                IMY notes that the information provided by Spotify pursuant to Article 15 i

                                the data protection regulation was generally designed. The same information was thus provided
                                regardless of who requested access in accordance with Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation.

                                The information was thus not adapted based on each request for access. However
                                described Spotify when certain information was relevant for the data subject, for example
                                "If you use a third-party service (…)", "If you choose to pay for a service or

                                function via invoice (…)” and “In cases where you have given us permission (…)”. There was
                                thereby certain prerequisites for the data subject to determine which information

                                meant him or her. There was also an opportunity for registrants to apply
                                to Spotify and request more individualized information as well as clarification of it
                                information that had been provided.


                                IMY considers that such generally designed information may be suitable for

                                standardized services that include personal data processing. Because they
                                data subjects must understand how their personal data is processed, however, it must always be
                                possible to clearly and simply read out which information is applicable in which situations

                                based on the information provided. This means that the possibility for those registered
                                to turn to Spotify for more individualized information as well as clarifications

                                does not affect the assessment of whether the information here is sufficiently clear
                                the respect. Generally designed information must not entail any ambiguities regarding


                                7 See the European Data Protection Board's (EDPB) guidelines on the right of access - Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject
                                rights – Right of access, version 2.0 (finally adopted on 28 March 2023), paragraph 113.
                                8 See appendix 2 The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 10(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                whether the data subject is affected by the current information or not based on

                                his individual situation. IMY therefore has to test the information that Spotify
                                submitted met these requirements.


                                Information on categories of personal data, purpose, recipient and source

                                Information about the purpose of the processing must refer to the purposes for which it is

                                data subject's personal data is actually processed, and must not consist of only one
                                enumeration of various purposes without clarifying which purposes are relevant

                                the person requesting access. Furthermore, information about the categories of personal data
                                which are processed need to be adapted to the circumstances of the data subject who requests
                                access. With regard to information about recipients or categories of recipients, such should

                                information be as specific as possible. The data controller should normally
                                state to which actual recipients the personal data has or is to be disclosed, if
                                it is not impossible because, for example, there is no information yet

                                about who the recipients are. In addition, all available information must be provided about where from
                                the personal data will, if the personal data has not been collected from it
                                              9
                                registered.

                                Regarding the information provided by Spotify about the purpose of the processing,

                                recipient of personal data and source from which the data was collected states
                                IMY that the information was divided based on different categories of personal data. These
                                categories of personal data consisted of "user data", "usage data", "data

                                on plan verification", "voting data", "payment and purchase data" and "competition, survey and
                                lottery data”. The categories of personal data specified were generally held and
                                contained none in several cases, for example regarding "user data" and "usage data".

                                more detailed description of which personal data could be included. IMY believes that,
                                especially in the absence of a clear description of the relevant categories, was not possible

                                for the data subjects to, based on the information provided, understand which personal data
                                which were included in the various categories. Because the information on purpose,
                                recipient and source was divided according to these categories of personal data entails

                                this lack that it was also not possible for data subjects to easily understand which
                                personal data processed for which purposes, which personal data
                                taken from which source or which personal data was provided to a particular recipient

                                or category of recipients. Those registered have thus not had the opportunity to read out
                                in which way their personal data was processed.


                                IMY therefore believes that Spotify has not provided sufficiently clear information about the purposes
                                with the processing (Article 15.1 a of the data protection regulation), the categories of

                                personal data processing applies (Article 15.1 b of the data protection regulation),
                                recipients or categories of recipients (Article 15.1 c of the data protection regulation) or
                                source from which the data was collected (Article 15.1 g of the Data Protection Regulation).

                                The information was not concise, clear and clear, nor was it easily accessible. The
                                thus also did not meet the requirements of Article 12.1 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                Information on storage period

                                Information provided about how long personal data is stored must be sufficient

                                specific so that the data subject understands how long his personal data will last
                                to be stored. If it is not possible to specify the time of deletion, the relevant one should be used instead


                                9 Cf. the European Data Protection Board's (EDPB) guidelines on the right of access - Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject
                                rights – Right of access, version 2.0 (adopted on 28 March 2023), paragraphs 114-120 and judgment of 12 January 2023 in EU-
                                court case C-154/21, Österreichische Post.Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Diary number: DI-2019-6696 11(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12







                                the event affecting conservation is specified, such as the expiration of a
                                warranty period. The storage periods shall refer to the personal data that is linked
                                the data subject requesting access. If this personal data is subject to different

                                storage periods, information about the storage periods must be specified in relation to each
                                current personal data processing and category of personal data. 10


                                Spotify provided information about storage periods under the heading "Criteria for
                                retention of personal data”. The information contained general information about

                                for which purposes the personal data is saved and criteria used to
                                determine the storage periods. Among other things, it was stated that personal data as standard

                                is retained for 90 days, unless a longer period is chosen due to a legitimate business reason.
                                Furthermore, it was stated, among other things, that personal data is stored for a suitable period in order to
                                deliver a personalized service over time and that streaming history is usually preserved during

                                lifetime of an account.


                                The information on how long data is kept was generally designed and, with
                                exception, among other things, for the information about streaming history, not clearly linked to
                                which categories of personal data were intended by the different storage times. The

                                registrants could therefore find it difficult to decipher which of their personal data
                                was preserved for what period of time. The criteria for determining the storage period

                                which were stated in the information were furthermore in some cases very imprecise. It is for example
                                difficult for a data subject to understand what was included in "legitimate business reason" and
                                thus in which situations personal data was kept longer than 90 days or whatever

                                meant that streaming history was "usually" preserved for the lifetime of an account.

                                In an overall assessment, IMY considers that the information provided regarding

                                storage periods did not meet the requirements in Article 15.1 d of the data protection regulation partly then
                                the information in this part was generally designed and lacked connection to current

                                category of personal data, partly then some of the criteria used to
                                determining the storage period was too imprecise for the data subject to understand
                                how long his personal data was stored. The information was not concise, clear and

                                clear and also not easily accessible. It therefore also did not meet the requirements of the article
                                12.1 of the data protection regulation.


                                Information on third country transfer


                                In order for the registered person to be able to assess a possible transfer of his
                                personal data to third countries is legal, the data subject must get meaningful

                                information that makes it possible to find out whether his personal data has been transferred and
                                if so, what safeguards have been used. To enable it was registered
                                checking whether his or her personal data has been processed legally, it should i
                                                                                                        11
                                it will normally also be clear to which third countries the transfer has taken place.


                                In the information provided by Spotify regarding transfers to third countries it was clear
                                under the heading "International transfers" that Spotify can share personal data
                                globally with other Spotify Group companies, service providers, partners, etc. Further

                                stated that Spotify ensures that the transfer is carried out in accordance with the applicable
                                data protection and privacy laws and that technical and organizational measures, and i

                                in particular, appropriate protective measures are applied, e.g. the standard contract clauses which


                                10 European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidelines on the right of access - Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights
                                – Right of access, version 2.0 (finally adopted on 28 March 2023), paragraph 118.
                                11 Cf the Article 29 Group's Guidelines on Transparency under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, WP260rev.01, adopted by
                                European Data Protection Agency, p.40. Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 12(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                approved by the European Commission when personal data is transferred from European
                                economic cooperation area (EEA).


                                IMY states that the information provided by Spotify regarding
                                third country transfers was generally designed and not linked to the registered
                                own situation. It was not clear whether the data subject's personal data had
                                transferred to any third country, and if so, what appropriate safeguards were in place

                                taken at the time of transfer. It was also not clear to which third countries the transfer had
                                happened. IMY therefore assesses that the information provided regarding
                                third country transfers did not meet the requirements of Article 15.2 of the Data Protection Regulation.

                                The information was not concise, clear and clear, nor was it easily accessible. The
                                thus also did not meet the requirements of Article 12.1 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                Summary assessment of the information according to Article 15.1 and 15.2 i
                                data protection regulation


                                In summary, IMY finds that the information provided by Spotify according to article
                                15.1 and 15.2 of the data protection regulation during the period between 16 November 2021
                                up to and including 16 May 2022 has been deficient in the above-mentioned respects.
                                Spotify has thus processed personal data in violation of articles 12.1, 15.1 a-d,

                                15.1 g and 15.2 of the data protection regulation.

                                3.2 The right to access personal data and a copy of

                                personal data under processing – article 15.1 and 15.3 i
                                data protection regulation


                                3.2.1 What has emerged in the case
                                Spotify has stated that their response to access requests, with a few exceptions, is

                                designed to disclose all personal data that they process regarding it
                                registered. The company has further explained its routines to ensure that all
                                personal data is disclosed, for example when new or updated

                                personal data processing.

                                The copy of personal data provided by Spotify in accordance with Article 15.3 i

                                the data protection regulation can be given through three different answers, Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3.

                                The personal data covered by Type 1 is profile information and the personal data
                                which Spotify has deemed to be of greatest interest to those registered. In Type 1 is included

                                therefore, it recorded playlists, streaming history and recent searches
                                the year, objects saved in the registrant's library, the number of followers of the registrant
                                has, the number of users the registrant follows, the names of artists the registrant

                                follows, user data and payment information. To give the registrant access to
                                Type 1 information, the company has introduced a function called "download your data" on a
                                privacy settings web page. The web page through which the data subject can

                                access to this information is available to all customers via their Spotify account
                                and provided in the same language as their Spotify service. Those registered may
                                access to the Type 1 information within about seven days. Those registered can also get

                                access to the Type 1 information by contacting Spotify's customer service.

                                Type 2 information consists of technical log files that are stored in Spotify's system
                                linked to the data subject's user ID. To access the Type 2 information

                                the data subject can send a request via Spotify's web form for privacy issues
                                or by contacting customer service or Spotify's data protection officer through someone
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                other channel (email, Facebook, Twitter or letter). It takes about two to four weeks to

                                compile and disclose this personal data.

                                Type 3 information consists of the information that a registered person specifically requests and can

                                for example, refer to the data subject's listening history on a particular date, an extended
                                listening history or a request for unstructured personal data, for example a
                                request for certain email correspondence. Type 3 information can be requested on the same

                                way as Type 2 and such a request normally takes less than 30 days to process.
                                In case it takes longer to process the request, due to the complexity of the request,

                                the data subject is informed of the delay.

                                On 15 June 2021, Spotify implemented changes which mean that all Spotify

                                users who request a copy of personal data beyond what is available in
                                "Download your data" tool, or that directly requests a copy of all its
                                personal data from Spotify's customer service, get access to extended streaming history

                                as well as technical log information in one package.


                                Spotify has stated that the design of the process and its development up to today are one
                                aggregate result of joint discussions, careful considerations and analyses
                                as well as meetings with relevant customer service and development teams. Spotify's data protection team

                                has provided advice regarding legal requirements and "best practices" in data protection and
                                continues to continuously update these based on a number of identified parameters,
                                including relevant and current legislation, guidance, the ability to

                                quickly respond to a large number of requests, ease of use and categories of
                                personal data that is processed.


                                Spotify has stated that they have over 232 million monthly active users and that
                                during the period from 25 May 2018 to 30 June 2019 they answered 753,575 requests

                                about access. According to Spotify, the division of data into three different types has done so
                                possible to provide a quick and easy way for the data subject to download them
                                personal data that is likely to be most relevant to the data subject and to generate

                                answer in large measure and with the speed required to satisfy the majority
                                of those registered.

                                                                                                          12
                                Spotify further refers to statements in the EDPB's transparency guidelines that it i
                                data protection regulation there is an inherent tension between the requirements to provide the
                                recorded extensive information on the one hand and that the information should be given in one

                                concise, clear and clear, comprehensible and easily accessible form on the other hand, that one must
                                determine how to prioritize information that must be provided to data subjects and

                                which levels of detail and methods are suitable for conveying the information and that
                                the principle of openness is an overarching obligation. Spotify believes that these guidelines
                                has relevance for the design of a concise, open, easy to understand and easily accessible

                                process for data subjects to exercise their rights under Article 15 i
                                data protection regulation. By providing three layers of response to requests for access to
                                registered, Spotify intends to balance the data protection regulation's interests on one

                                correct way in favor of Spotify's registrants. Spotify's goal is to provide correct
                                information in accordance with Article 15 to all data subjects at the right time by
                                provide information in different layers and in different ways.


                                Spotify has stated that the company informed registered users that it was possible to

                                request access to more personal data than those covered by Type 1 and Type 2, as well as

                                12Article 29 Working Party Guidelines on Transparency under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, WP260rev.01, as adopted by
                                European Data Protection Board, point 1 and point 34. Data Protection Authority Diary number: DI-2019-6696 14(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                that this information was provided to data subjects before they requested access to theirs
                                personal data. Furthermore, Spotify has stated that it appeared that those registered could

                                request access to more personal data than those covered by Type 1 by
                                request a Type 2 response. In addition, registered users could contact Spotify's customer service with

                                special requests (so-called Type 3 request). The information about this is provided in different ways
                                way, including on the website for "Personal data rights and
                                privacy settings" and on the website where information according to Article 15 i

                                the data protection regulation is published. When a user requests access to the
                                personal data covered by Type 1 by going to "Download your data" is
                                further according to Spotify clear from the context that users get access to a selection of

                                their personal data and not all their personal data. On the "Download your data" page
                                there is also a reference to the web page "Personal data rights and
                                privacy settings”. For requests according to both Type 1 and Type 2, information is given according to

                                article 15 of the data protection regulation which contains a comprehensive description of
                                available data. The information sources also explain that the user can request access
                                to their personal data via customer service or by contacting Spotify via email. If

                                a user contacts Spotify's customer service to exercise the right of access according to article
                                15 of the data protection regulation, customer service can explain all three types of
                                personal data that is available and inform users about it further

                                information that is available. The registrants were also informed that they could
                                request access to more personal data than they have already downloaded on the website
                                "Understand my data".


                                Furthermore, during the processing of the case, Spotify has updated the information that directs

                                itself to the data subjects in order to make it more transparent for data subjects that it exists
                                more to request than what is available in the "Download Your Data" tool.


                                With regard to the clarity of the information, Spotify has essentially stated the following. At
                                designing the access request response format the company focused on
                                provide all information in a way that makes it relevant, transparent and helpful

                                for those registered. The company developed a routine to ensure that the descriptions of
                                the personal data is correct and complete, which included extensive efforts for
                                to translate technical information into a simple language that can be understood by a

                                average customer, however, without removing such details as are necessary for transparency.
                                To facilitate understanding, Spotify does, among other things, the following.


                                - When downloading Type 1 information, the registered person also receives a so-called
                                   "Read Me First" file. In the "Read Me First" file there is a link to the web page "Understand my
                                   data", where the format and personal data included in Type 1 are described. This one

                                   page has been updated during the processing of the case to now also include one
                                   general description of the data in the technical log files and the extended

                                   the streaming history. The linked pages are automatically displayed on the customer's preferred one
                                   language based on the language setting in the customer's browser.
                                - In the Type 2 information, which consists of technical log files, there is some information

                                   which is highly technical in nature. To help data subjects understand
                                   the formatting of the personal data Spotify provides a detailed
                                   description of the personal data in a special file in connection with the data

                                   provided (in a “Read Me First” file for Type 2 requests). This description
                                   provided by default in English. Spotify also answers customers' questions
                                   about the significance of the personal data provided, as part of its process for

                                   access request was registered. Spotify also continuously updates both

                                13From June 15, 2019 comprehensive Type 2 information, in addition to the technical log files, also expanded
                                listening history. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 15(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                   the format of technical log files attributable to the customer's user ID (Type 2) and
                                   corresponding information in the Type 2 “Read Me First” file to increase transparency
                                   based on the questions asked.

                                – As regards special requests (Type 3), when the personal data which
                                   provided may require explanations, Spotify may, if necessary, leave the information in
                                   an e-mail to the data subject together with the copy of

                                   the personal data.

                                Spotify has stated the following as background to the description of the Type 2 data

                                by default is left in English. To ensure that the information that the company
                                providing the registrants are correctly translated into their local language they are sent files
                                to be translated by manual translation to professional translators. Against

                                background of technical log data changing more dynamically over time than others
                                personal data that is collected, the company would have to send the extensive "Read
                                me First” file on translation several times a month. This would be

                                disproportionate and unreasonable to do for all local languages given the extra time,
                                resources and administration it would entail. Furthermore, many of the words have
                                appear in the technical log data typically no translation because they

                                often reflect technical concepts communicated primarily in English and
                                usually not translated into local languages. However, the company helps with translation
                                the information into local language if a user requests it to the extent they

                                the technical terms are translatable. Spotify has further stated that they have
                                responded to approximately 340,000 requests for access to technical log files. Of these
                                requests, only two registrants have turned to the company and requested one

                                translation of the description into their local language. Spotify further believes that
                                translation of the technical log files without request would mean that all
                                data subjects would have to wait longer to obtain their right of access by the technical
                                the log files provided.


                                In terms of which format is used, Spotify has stated that the personal data
                                provided in JSON format which, according to the company, is a structured and widely used

                                format that can be understood by both computers and humans. Data provided to
                                however, following a Type 3 request is provided in the format needed to respond
                                request.


                                Spotify has further informed IMY on 17 October 2022 that the company has since
                                the time allowed for data subjects to request access to account data, extended

                                streaming history and technical log information directly through "Download your data"-
                                the tool, i.e. without contacting customer service. These routines are not covered by IMY's
                                review when the update has taken place after May 16, 2022.


                                3.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment
                                According to Article 15.1 of the data protection regulation, the data subject has the right to receive confirmation

                                on whether the personal data controller processes personal data concerning him or
                                her and in that case gain access to the personal data. The personal data controller has,
                                according to Article 15.3, an obligation to provide the data subject with a copy of the

                                personal data that is being processed. The right of access is the same regardless
                                by who the data controller is but the way to handle a request for access
                                may vary, among other things depending on the extent of the personal data that

                                processed and the number of registrants. According to Article 12.2 of the Data Protection Ordinance,
                                the personal data controller an obligation to facilitate the data subject to exercise
                                their rights. The Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 16(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                The purpose of the right of access is for the data subject to become aware of it

                                processing that takes place and be able to check that it is legal. The
                                The data controller must therefore ensure that the copy of personal data
                                that is provided contains all the personal data processed about it

                                registered and is designed in a way that is comprehensible to the registered. Access
                                to the personal data must be given in a way that meets the requirements for transparency
                                in Article 12.1 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                The requirements placed on the design and content of the copy mean that they

                                personal data controllers who process a large amount of data or data that is
                                particularly difficult to understand, may need to take special measures when the information
                                presented to those registered.


                                Spotify, whose personal data processing is both extensive and complex, has taken
                                develop special procedures for handling requests for access. The question is about these

                                routines enable the company to provide access to the personal data they process in one
                                way that satisfies the data subject's right of access.


                                Division of the copy of personal data into different layers


                                Spotify divides the copy of personal data into different layers, Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3.

                                IMY believes that there is no obstacle to dividing the copy of personal information in this way

                                as long as the right of access is satisfied. In some situations, on the contrary, it can help
                                the registrant to absorb the information if it is presented separately, in any case when
                                it is a matter of an extensive amount of information. The provision of the copy on

                                however, personal data in different layers must neither restrict the right of access nor make it difficult
                                the exercise of it. The person in charge of personal data must therefore take this into account in particular

                                the assessment of whether it is an appropriate measure to divide the copy of personal data.

                                A data subject who addresses a personal data controller to request access to

                                their personal data normally lacks knowledge of which personal data are
                                actually treated. Acquiring this knowledge is instead often the very purpose of
                                request. If the personal data controller in this situation only provides it

                                registrant with a selection of his personal data, the registrant risks that
                                is led to believe that the copy provided is complete.


                                For this reason, IMY considers that the personal data controller, in the channel he has
                                established so that the data subject can request access, must be clear that

                                the copy of the personal data is divided into different layers. It must also be clear to
                                it recorded what information is in the various layers and in what way
                                registrants can access these.4


                                In the report Spotify has submitted, it appears that the registered, in several different channels,
                                receives information that access to different personal data can be requested in different ways.

                                Through these channels it appears that access to "your most relevant personal data" can
                                obtained through the "download your data" function as well as access to technical log information,
                                extended streaming history or responses to other specific data protection requests may be obtained

                                upon request via e-mail or customer service. IMY can, of those reported in the report
                                the examples, state that the information provided to the registered also contains



                                14 Cf. The European Data Protection Board's (EDPB's) guidelines on the right of access - Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject
                                rights – Right of access, version 2.0 (finally adopted on March 28, 2023), point 146. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 17(30)
                                 Date: 2023-06-12






                                 an overall enumeration of which personal data the various types of

                                 requests include.

                                 IMY assesses that the information provided by Spotify in this regard, during that period

                                 which the review of the general routines refers to, is sufficiently clear that it
                                 data subjects must understand how the copy is divided, including what information is contained in them
                                 the different layers, and how the different layers should be requested.


                                 To set up special conditions for the exercise of the right of access without support i

                                 the data protection regulation risks causing the data subject to be unduly hindered in
                                 their exercise of the right. In other words, it can be perceived as unnecessarily complicated to
                                 exercise the right, which in turn may result in the data subject refraining from requesting

                                 out all information to which the registered person is entitled. There are reasons to emphasize that the
                                 personal data controller, according to article 12.2 of the data protection regulation, has a
                                 obligation to facilitate the exercise of the data subject's rights. In order to

                                 the provision of the copy of personal data in different layers shall not entail that
                                 the right is restricted or that the exercise of the right is made more difficult, IMY therefore considers that

                                 it cannot be required that the data subject returns to the personal data controller
                                 on several occasions to gain access to all personal data. Nor can it
                                 be complicated to request access to the various layers. IMY therefore considers that it

                                 registrants must be able to request access to all warehouses from the beginning and that
                                 it should be easy to get access to these. Another thing is that the registered, with
                                 the knowledge of how the data is divided, yet can choose to only request access
                                                        15
                                 to one or more layers.

                                 From Spotify's statement, it appears that the registered person can request access to the various

                                 the layers in different ways. It is not required that the registrant returns to Spotify to take
                                 part of the different layers. However, the data subject may have to take several measures to

                                 get access to several layers, e.g. by both downloading Type 1 information through
                                 function "download your data" and by requesting access to Type 2 and Type 3
                                 information through customer service. If the data subject contacts customer service directly

                                 with their request, the data subject can request access to all personal data
                                 at the same time.


                                 IMY considers that the fact that the data subject must take various measures for
                                 requesting the various layers of data may cause some inconvenience. The registered
                                 however, has the opportunity to take all of these actions at one and the same time.

                                 All measures can also be taken easily via Spotify's website. At
                                 an overall assessment, IMY believes that Spotify's routines enable the registered to

                                 request access to all their personal data in a sufficiently simple way.

                                 The design of the copy and format of the copy


                                 It follows from Article 12.1 of the data protection regulation that the information provided according to
                                 Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation must be given in a concise, clear and understandable, understandable and

                                 easily accessible form using clear and unambiguous language. What requirements should
                                 placed on clarity in the individual case must be assessed against the background of the purpose of
                                 the right of access, i.e. that the data subject must become aware of the treatment which

                                 takes place and be able to check that the processing is legal.




                                 1 Cf. The European Data Protection Board's (EDPB's) guidelines on the right of access - Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject
                                 rights – Right of access, version 2.0 (finally adopted on March 28, 2023), point 146. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 18(30)
                                 Date: 2023-06-12






                                 The majority of the data that Spotify processes, especially when it comes to data in

                                 the technical log files are by their very nature very technical as they contain e.g. codes and
                                 numbers. Such information can be difficult for the average data subject to understand. To

                                 to provide such information without further explanation would, according to IMY, not live up to
                                 the requirements for clarity, in terms of the purpose of the right. Because the data to
                                 provided in accordance with Article 15.1 of the Data Protection Regulation and covered by a copy

                                 according to article 15.3 of the data protection regulation shall be the personal data which
                                 is processed, however, it is not permitted for the personal data controller to change
                                 difficult-to-understand personal data to facilitate understanding. Such data can

                                 instead need to be explained.


                                 Spotify provides, together with the copy of personal data, additional descriptions for
                                 to make the data in the various layers comprehensible to the data subject. Spotify responds
                                 also on the data subject's questions about the meaning of the personal data provided and

                                 updates its general procedures and descriptions based on the questions that are asked.


                                 IMY believes that data in the technical log files that Spotify provides can be
                                 complicated to understand, despite the descriptions provided by Spotify. IMY believes
                                 however, that by providing these descriptions, Spotify enables it

                                 registered, albeit with some effort, to assimilate the information. That it
                                 despite descriptions, some effort may be required by the data subject to understand some
                                 particularly complicated tasks are a natural consequence of the nature of these tasks.


                                 By default, Spotify provides only the detailed description of

                                 the data in the technical log files in English. Neither Article 12.1 nor Article 15 i
                                 the data protection regulation contains an explicit requirement in which language
                                 personal data, or the description thereof, must be provided to the data subject.

                                 However, IMY believes that it follows from the purpose of the right of access and the requirements for clarity i
                                 article 12.1 that the registered should be able to receive the information in a language they know, i
                                 at least when the personal data controller directs its activities to countries where this

                                 constitutes an official language. This means that the personal data controller must take
                                 sufficient measures to ensure that the data subject understands the information.


                                 Spotify provides the majority of information provided to
                                 registered according to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation, including a general

                                 description of what the technical log files may include, based on
                                 the language settings in the individual's web settings, i.e. the local language. Further

                                 Spotify leaves clear information, in the local language, about the possibility to request
                                 translation of the description of the technical log files in the "Read Me First" file which
                                 provided with each request for access. This information is also provided at the local

                                 the language on the "Understand my data" webpage. Spotify has thus taken extensive
                                 measures to provide information in a language that the data subject must know
                                 comprehend. However, Spotify has reported significant difficulties in translating

                                 the description of the data in the technical log files to all local languages in them
                                 countries to which they direct their operations. The difficulties have their basis in the constant

                                 the changes to the data in the technical log files and the fact that many
                                 technical concepts can hardly be translated from English.





                                 1Cf the Article 29 Group's Guidelines on Transparency under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, WP260rev.01, adopted by
                                 European Data Protection Board, point 13 and the European Data Protection Board's (EDPB) guidelines on the right to
                                 access – Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights – Right of access, version 2.0 (finally adopted on 28 March 2023)
                                 point 142. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 19(30)
                                 Date: 2023-06-12






                                 However, IMY notes that Spotify has stated that, at the request of a data subject, they have

                                 possibility to translate the description of the data in the technical log files into one
                                 local language to the extent that the technical terms are translatable. Since
                                 a translation is therefore possible in practice, IMY believes that such a translation should

                                 can be provided even before a request for translation has been made from one
                                 registered. Spotify's stated difficulty in translating the description, including that
                                 translation may need to be done on several occasions each month and the additional ones

                                 resources this requires, cannot justify leaving the description as default either
                                 in English. Considering the purpose of the right of access, it is crucial that it

                                 data subjects understand which of their personal data has been processed in the technical
                                 the log files, which requires an understandable description of its content. IMY therefore considers
                                 that Spotify should have provided the description in local language already in connection with

                                 that the technical log files were provided to the data subject, at least to that extent
                                 it was necessary to understand the data in the technical log files.


                                 Against this background, IMY believes that Spotify has not taken sufficient measures to
                                 ensure that the data subject understands the description of the data in the technical

                                 the log files when this information is only provided in English by default. The
                                 information that Spotify provides in this part therefore did not meet the requirements that all
                                 communications provided to the data subject pursuant to Article 15 i

                                 the data protection regulation must be clear and understandable in the manner specified in Article 12.1 i
                                 data protection regulation. The fact that a data subject has the opportunity to return to
                                 Spotify to request a translation does not cure this deficiency.


                                 It follows from Article 15.3 of the data protection regulation that a data subject who makes a request
                                 if access in electronic form must receive the information in an electronic format that is

                                 generally used, unless the data subject requests otherwise. Spotify is leaving
                                 the data in JSON format. In the guidelines on the right to data portability, JSON format is given
                                                                                        17
                                 as an example of a widely used open format.

                                 IMY states that the requirements set for formats are different for the right to data portability

                                 and the right of access when data portability according to article 20.1 of the data protection regulation
                                 also requires that the data be provided in a structured and machine-readable format
                                 format. In terms of the purpose of the right of access, IMY requires that the format in which

                                 the data is provided in accordance with Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation must be possible
                                 to read for a natural person. However, there is nothing to prevent the format from also being
                                 machine readable. Such a format can, in many cases, make it easier for the registered to himself

                                 make various summaries or searches to facilitate understanding. IMY
                                 believes that JSON format, which can be read by both computers and natural persons, i

                                 the current situation is such an electronic generally used format as referred to in Article 15.3 i
                                 data protection regulation.


                                 Summary assessment regarding the right of access to personal data and copy
                                 on personal data during processing – article 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation


                                 In summary, IMY finds that Spotify's way of dividing the copy of personal data
                                 in different layers does not hinder the exercise of the data subjects' rights and thus is
                                 in accordance with article 12.2 of the data protection regulation and that the design and format

                                 on the copy of personal data largely meets the requirements for transparency in Article 12.1 i
                                 data protection regulation.



                                 1Article 29 Group Guidelines on the right to data portability, WP242 rev.01, adopted by the European
                                 the Swedish Data Protection Agency, p. 19. The Swedish Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 20(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12





                                However, IMY finds that the description of the data in the technical log files which

                                Spotify left during the period from and including 11 June 2019 to and including 16 May
                                2022 has not met the requirements of Article 12.1 of the Data Protection Regulation when this
                                information by default has only been provided in English. Spotify has thus i
                                in this respect processed personal data in violation of Article 12.1 i

                                data protection regulation during the relevant time period.


                                4 Examination of individual complaints - Justification

                                of decisions

                                4.1 Complaint 1 (from the Netherlands with national

                                reference number z2018-28415)

                                4.1.1 Background

                                The appellant has argued in summary that Spotify due to his
                                the access request made on 27 May 2018 has not provided access to all of his
                                personal data within the time prescribed in Article 12.3 of the data protection regulation

                                and that, once he has gained access to all personal data, these have not
                                provided in an understandable form in the manner prescribed in Article 12.1 i
                                data protection regulation.


                                4.1.2 What has emerged in the matter
                                Spotify provides three types of responses to ensure an appropriate and complete response
                                response to its users' requests in accordance with Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation.

                                Spotify has stated that information about all three types of responses (Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3)
                                as well as information on how to request access to them was available at
                                the time of the appellant's request. In connection with a user choosing to load
                                down its data (Type 1), was evident from the description and instructions in direct connection with

                                the download tool that this was just a convenient way to get a copy of “the
                                most" personal data from his account and which categories of personal data that
                                were available through the tool. From the context it was therefore clear enough that

                                other personal data was also available. The appellant also had the opportunity to
                                contact customer service via several channels and request additional personal data.
                                The complainant had also had the opportunity to turn to customer service and directly request
                                access to all their personal data.


                                Spotify believes that the process at the time was transparent enough to
                                users would be able to understand as well as request additional available data in addition to those
                                which was included in the "Download your data" tool. Many other users also requested

                                both Type 2 and Type 3 tasks at that time. The appellant also succeeded in requesting
                                and access both Type 1 and Type 2 information. Spotify has subsequently done the majority
                                improvements in their processes to ensure that users cannot miss all three

                                types of information available and how to easily request access to it
                                the information.

                                Spotify has stated that with regard to the provision of the complainant's personal data, so

                                provided all requested personal data within the time frame specified in
                                article 12.3 of the data protection regulation. "Download your data" (Type 1) was requested by
                                complainant on 27 May 2018. The data was made available and downloaded by
                                complainant on May 28, 2018. A response time of one day is consistent with Spotify's

                                goal of quickly providing the most relevant information to users through
                                their automatic tools. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 21(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                Technical log files (Type 2) were requested by the complainant via email on 11 June 2018. In
                                Spotify's response on July 6, 2018, Spotify informed the complainant that the provision of
                                the personal data would take a little longer than expected due to the high number

                                requests and the complexity of compiling such technical information.
                                The information was made available for download on July 17, 2018. Even after having
                                informed the appellant of the reason why the response would be delayed, only 36 elapsed

                                calendar days (26 working days) between the complainant's request and the receipt of a response.

                                Regarding the complainant's complaint regarding the format of the personal data, Spotify has

                                stated that Type 2 data contains a large number of files with technical log data.
                                What data is processed may differ significantly for different users based on
                                what kind of Spotify service plan they have (eg Free, Premium, Family), features and

                                the specific user's activity, as well as variations in the usual internal
                                the processing and error logging of the Spotify software itself. Its a challenge
                                to find a way to explain this kind of technical information in a way like that

                                the average Spotify user can understand.

                                At the time of the complainant's request, Spotify provided the information in a JSON

                                format. However, Spotify did not provide any additional documentation to
                                further clarify what types of data were included and how these should be interpreted
                                (in addition to the information that appears in the JSON data fields themselves). Since 2019

                                however, Spotify provides a supplementary "Read Me First" file upon delivery of
                                all Type 2 data, which further describes the information contained in each file and
                                data field. Given the complexity and volume of the technical log files required

                                the creation of the "Read Me First" file a lot of work, and Spotify had not yet
                                completed this process at the time of the appellant's original request for access.

                                It was a mistake to provide the appellant with some of the technical log files in

                                encrypted format. Spotify stores data in its systems in encrypted format to reinforce
                                the integrity and security in connection with the company's own internal processing of
                                personal data. It was not Spotify's intention to withhold from the complainant

                                personal data from him. Although most of the encrypted data was decrypted
                                before being included in the appellant's technical log files, some of the fields were not
                                decrypted. That kind of problem was fixed upon discovery of this, and now

                                requested personal data is always provided unencrypted.

                                Spotify wants to draw IMY's attention to the fact that the complainant requested their personal data

                                again in July 2020. This request came after his complaint to IMY and the improvements
                                as described above. The complainant received his personal data significantly faster than
                                within 30 days. The complainant requested "Download your data" (Type 1) on 28 July 2020.

                                Spotify provided the personal data three calendar days later, on July 31, 2020.
                                The complainant also requested its technical log files (Type 2) on August 3, 2020 and
                                downloaded the personal data when it was available 15 days later, on August 18

                                2020. Both of these requests were answered within a total of 18 days by Spotify and
                                the complainant was able to receive all his personal data within a total of 21 calendar days. This one
                                timeframe is representative of Spotify's handling of these types of requests from

                                user. All technical information received by the complainant on August 18, 2020 was
                                unencrypted. The complainant should also have received a "Read Me First" file as field by field
                                explained the information provided. With the fulfillment of the appellant's latest

                                request, Spotify hopes that all the complainant's questions regarding articles 12.1 and
                                12.3 of the data protection regulation that he raised in his complaint have been answered. The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 22(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                4.1.3 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment
                                As IMY states in the assessment of the company's general routines, section 3.2.2 i

                                this decision, it is possible to divide the copy of personal data into different layers provided
                                that the data subject has received sufficient information, among other things, about how the copy
                                personal data is divided and how access to the various layers can be requested.


                                The fact that the complainant claims that his personal data was not provided in time shows that
                                the appellant must have considered that his initial request which was sent on 27 May 2018
                                referred to all personal data that Spotify processed about him. Of data such as

                                the complainant left further states that he contacted Spotify because he himself
                                noticed that the copy of personal data he received on 28 May 2018 was not
                                full. The fact that he contacted Spotify was thus a consequence of those conclusions

                                the appellant himself drew from the copy of personal data he received and not from
                                on the grounds that the complainant understood Spotify's division of the copy into personal data and
                                how access to additional data could be requested. These circumstances speak according to

                                IMY for the information provided by Spotify at the time of the complainant
                                the request regarding the division of the copy on personal data has not been sufficient
                                clear.


                                IMY also believes in an assessment of the information provided by Spotify
                                description and instructions in connection with the appellant making his Type 1 request

                                on May 27, 2018 that that information alone was not clear enough to
                                the appellant should have understood that it was only a subset of the personal data which
                                was covered by the request. At the time of the appellant's request, it was also missing

                                information that is currently available on Spotify's website, including on the website
                                for "Personal data rights and privacy settings", where it is clear which
                                personal data given in the various responses, and how access to these can be requested. IMY

                                further considers that what Spotify stated that the complainant could turn to customer service and
                                requesting additional information is irrelevant as such action presupposes that
                                the complainant would have understood that there were additional personal data that could

                                be released.

                                In view of the above, IMY considers that Spotify, at the time of the complainant
                                request for access, did not provide sufficiently clear information for the appellant to

                                understand that the copy of personal data was divided. That there is sufficient information for
                                that a registered person must understand that his request only refers to a selection of them
                                personal data that is processed is a prerequisite for the personal data controller

                                must be able to limit the disclosure of this personal data. In case it is unclear about
                                the request only concerns a selection of the personal data, so it should
                                personal data controller assume that the registered person wants access to all of their

                                personal data. Spotify should therefore, as the information in this regard was deficient
                                at the time of the complainant's request, have disclosed all personal data that they
                                dealt with the appellant in connection with his request for access made on

                                May 27, 2018. The time within which Spotify had to leave the copy on all
                                personal data must therefore be calculated from this time. Spotify would, according to the article
                                12.3 of the data protection regulation, have provided a full copy of the complainant

                                personal data or notified the complainant of an extension of the time period at the latest
                                on 27 June 2018. Spotify first notified the complainant of an extension on 6 July 2018
                                of the time period. The copy of the additional personal data was provided on 17 July

                                2018. IMY states that Spotify did not announce the extension within the time that
                                prescribed in article 12.3 of the data protection regulation. Spotify has therefore left the copy on
                                the complainant's personal data too late. The Swedish Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 23(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                From the complainant's information, as confirmed by Spotify, it appears that they further
                                personal data he gained access to on 17 July 2018 has been difficult to understand as well as, in some
                                case, encrypted.


                                As IMY states under section 3.2.2, it is required that the personal data controller
                                explains particularly difficult to understand personal data so that the purpose of the right of access shall
                                considered fulfilled. IMY notes that Spotify has not lived up to its obligations in

                                the appellant's case as they have not provided an explanation for the particularly difficult to understand
                                information they provided in the copy as well as when they have provided certain information encrypted.


                                IMY states with regard to the above that Spotify in its management of
                                the complainant's request for access made on 27 May 2018 has processed
                                personal data in violation of article 12.3 of the data protection regulation, by making the copy on

                                personal data has been provided too late, as well as in violation of articles 12.1, 15.1 and 15.3 of
                                the data protection regulation, by not having provided all the complainants
                                personal data in an understandable form.


                                4.2 Complaint 2 (from Austria with national reference no
                                D130.198)


                                4.2.1 Background
                                The complainant has alleged that Spotify due to his request for access

                                which was made on October 10, 2018 has not provided all the personal data that
                                Spotify treats the complainant that Spotify has not provided any of it
                                information on the processing of the complainant's personal data as required by Article

                                15.1 a–h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation and that Spotify has not provided
                                the personal data in an understandable form in the manner prescribed in Article 12.1 i
                                data protection regulation. The appellant has stated, among other things, that the information has

                                provided in a format that is only machine-readable and not comprehensible to physical users
                                people.


                                4.2.2 What has emerged in the matter
                                Spotify has stated that the complainant requested access to "Download your data" (Type 1) on
                                10 October 2018. The data was made available and downloaded by the complainant on
                                18 October 2018. The complainant then never contacted Spotify again to bring them forward

                                views raised in his complaint to the IMY. Nor did he request access to
                                additional information beyond that made available through "Download Your Data"-
                                the tool.


                                Spotify provides three types of responses to ensure an appropriate and complete response
                                response to its users' requests in accordance with Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation.

                                Spotify has stated that information about all three types of responses (Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3),
                                as well as information on how to request access to them was available at
                                the time of the appellant's request. In connection with a user choosing to load

                                down its data (Type 1), was evident from the description and instructions in direct connection with
                                tool that this was just a convenient way to get a copy of "most"
                                personal data from his account and which categories of personal data were
                                available through the tool. From the context it was therefore clear enough that

                                other personal data was also available. The appellant also had the opportunity to
                                contact customer service via several channels and request additional personal data.


                                Spotify believes that the process at the time was transparent enough to
                                users would be able to understand and request additional available data in addition to those
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                which was included in the "Download your data" tool. Many other users also requested
                                both Type 2 and Type 3 tasks at that time. Spotify has subsequently done the majority
                                improvements in their processes to ensure that users cannot miss all three

                                types of information available and how to easily request access to it
                                the information.


                                At the time of the appellant's request, the specific web page had information
                                according to article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation not yet created and such
                                information was also not automatically included in the access request response.

                                Spotify confirms that the complainant did not receive this information along with his Type 1-
                                response in October 2018. Spotify notes that although the complainant did not receive the specific
                                the information under Article 15 in connection with its request, the information was available

                                for the complainant in Spotify's privacy policy.

                                Spotify has further stated that the company had processes in place to provide

                                additional information and take action in the event that their response would not be considered
                                sufficient to fully respond to a data subject's access request. About the appellant
                                had contacted privacy@spotify.com or Spotify's customer service team regarding their

                                questions, they would have been happy to provide additional personal data and other information
                                according to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation which he requested.


                                It is true that the complainant's "Download your data" data was provided in JSON
                                format. JSON is a recommended standard format that can be understood by both
                                people and computers. The information in "Download your data" (Type 1) is largely

                                self-explanatory based on the file and field names. Nowadays, Spotify provides
                                however, also a detailed description of the data on the information webpage,
                                "Understand my data".


                                4.2.3 The Privacy Protection Authority's assessment
                                As IMY states in the assessment of the company's general routines, section 3.2.2 i

                                this decision, it is possible to divide the copy of personal data into different layers provided
                                that the data subject has received sufficient information, among other things, about how the copy
                                personal data is divided and how access to the various layers can be requested.


                                The complainant has, as IMY understands it, wanted access to all the information that
                                Spotify treats about him. However, the appellant has only requested access to Type 1-
                                the data and has also not returned to Spotify for further information.

                                According to IMY, the complainant's actions indicate that the information provided by Spotify
                                at the time of the appellant's request regarding the division of the copy on
                                personal data and how access to the various layers could be requested was not sufficient

                                clear so that the complainant would understand how he would get access to all the information.

                                IMY also believes in an assessment of the information provided by Spotify

                                description and instructions in connection with the appellant making his Type 1 request
                                on October 10, 2018 that that information alone was not clear enough to
                                the appellant should have understood that it was only a subset of the personal data which

                                was covered by the request. At the time of the appellant's request, it was also missing
                                information that is currently available on Spotify's website, including on the website
                                for "Personal data rights and privacy settings", where it is clear which

                                personal data given in the various responses, and how access to these can be requested. IMY
                                further considers that what Spotify stated that the complainant could turn to customer service and
                                requesting additional information has no meaning as such action requires that the Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 25(30
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                the complainant would have understood that there were additional personal data that could
                                be released.


                                In view of the above, IMY considers that Spotify, at the time of the complainant
                                request for access, did not provide sufficiently clear information for the appellant to
                                understand that the copy of personal data was divided. That there is sufficient information for

                                that a registered person must understand that his request only refers to a selection of them
                                personal data that is processed is a prerequisite for the personal data controller
                                must be able to limit the disclosure of this personal data. In case it is unclear about

                                the request only concerns a selection of the personal data, so it should
                                personal data controller assume that the registered person wants access to all of their
                                personal data. Spotify should therefore, as the information in this regard was deficient

                                at the time of the complainant's request, have disclosed all personal data that they
                                processed about the appellant. IMY states that Spotify has not disclosed all of them
                                personal data they processed about the complainant. Spotify has therefore not complied

                                the requirements in articles 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation to give the data subject
                                access to their personal data as the company has not provided the registered with one
                                full copy of the personal data that was being processed.


                                The complainant has further stated that the personal data he has been given access to was difficult
                                to understand. Spotify's response shows that at the time of the complainant's request

                                a description of the information provided to the appellant (Type 1) was missing. IMY
                                however, deems that the information provided pursuant to a Type 1 request is sufficient
                                clear for the average user to be able to understand the data and that

                                these therefore do not require any further explanation. IMY therefore believes that they
                                personal data provided has been sufficiently clear to meet the requirements according to
                                article 12.1 of the data protection regulation, i.e. that the information provided according to
                                Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation must be given in a concise, clear and understandable, understandable and

                                easily accessible form using clear and unambiguous language. Some lack therefore has
                                was not available regarding how clear the personal data provided to the appellant was
                                where. However, IMY looks positively on the improvements that Spotify has implemented after this

                                time, which can further increase the understanding of the personal data provided in
                                Type 1 response.


                                The complainant has further stated that his personal data was provided in a format which
                                was only machine readable and not comprehensible to natural persons. Spotify has stated
                                that the data was provided in JSON format. IMY believes, which also appears above below

                                3.2.2, that JSON format, which can be read by both computers and natural persons, i
                                the current situation is such an electronic generally used format as referred to in Article 15.3 i
                                data protection regulation. IMY therefore considers that there was no deficiency in respect of

                                the format in which the information was provided to the complainant.

                                The appellant has finally claimed that he did not receive information according to Article 15.1 a-h

                                and 15.2 of the data protection regulation. Spotify has confirmed that the complainant did not receive this
                                information together with the response to the request submitted in October 2018. Spotify
                                has thus not fulfilled its obligation to, in connection with the appellant's request for

                                access, provide information according to article 15.1 a-h and 15.2. The fact that information
                                at the time of the complainant's request was available in the company's privacy policy healer
                                not this deficiency.


                                IMY concludes in summary that Spotify in its handling of the complainant's request
                                if access made on 10 October 2018 has processed personal data in violation
                                with article 15.1 and 15.3 of the data protection regulation, by not having given access to the Privacy Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 26(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                all personal data that Spotify processed about the complainant and in conflict with
                                article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation, by not having provided
                                any of the information set out in these regulations.


                                4.3 Complaint 3 (from Denmark with national reference number
                                2018-31-1198)


                                The complainant has claimed that Spotify has not responded to the complainant's request
                                access according to Article 15 of the data protection regulation made on November 12, 2018.


                                The investigation into the matter has not shown that Spotify failed in its handling of the complainant
                                request for access, which means that the current complaint must be rejected. The
                                receiving supervisory authority, i.e. the Danish data protection authority, shall therefore

                                adopt the decision regarding this complaint in accordance with Article 60.8 of the Data Protection Regulation.
                                The justification for the decision in this part is thus reported in a separate decision from it
                                Danish Data Protection Authority.


                                5 Choice of intervention


                                5.1 Applicable Regulations


                                In the event of violations of the data protection regulation, IMY has a number of corrective measures
                                powers, including reprimands, injunctions and penalty charges. It follows from
                                article 58.2 a–j of the data protection regulation.


                                IMY shall impose penalty fees in addition to or in lieu of other corrective measures
                                as referred to in Article 58(2) of the Data Protection Regulation, depending on the circumstances i

                                each individual case.

                                If a personal data controller or a personal data assistant, with respect to a

                                and the same or connected data processing, intentionally or by
                                negligence violates several of the provisions of this regulation, it may
                                the total amount of the administrative penalty fee does not exceed the amount determined

                                for the most serious violation. It appears from Article 83.3 i
                                data protection regulation.


                                Each supervisory authority must ensure that the imposition of administrative
                                penalty charges in each individual case are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The
                                stated in Article 83.1 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                In article 83.2 of the data protection regulation, the factors that must be considered in order to
                                decide whether an administrative penalty fee should be imposed, but also what should
                                affect the size of the penalty fee.


                                The EDPB has adopted guidelines on the calculation of administrative penalty fees according to
                                the data protection regulation which aims to create a harmonized method and principles
                                                                    18
                                for calculation of penalty fees.






                                18EDPB's guidelines 8/2020 Guidelines 04/2022 on the calculation of administrative fines under the GDPR, final
                                adopted on 24 May 2023. Data Protection Authority Diary number: DI-2019-6696 27(30)
                               Date: 2023-06-12






                               5.2 Same or connected data processing

                               As noted above, IMY, in the review carried out by the authority, has
                               Spotify's general processes and routines for providing access according to Article 15 i

                               data protection regulation, found deficiencies in the information provided in accordance with Article 15.1
                               a–h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation as well as in the description of the data in them
                               the technical log files provided by Spotify. Spotify has also failed in its handling of

                               request for access in relation to two of the complaints IMY has reviewed, complaint 1 and
                               complaint 2.

                               The violations regarding the general routines relate to the information

                               according to article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation, to the period from
                               on November 16, 2021 through May 16, 2022 as well as, regarding the description
                               of the data in the technical log files, to the period from June 11, 2019 to

                               and with May 16, 2022. Request for access covered by the individuals
                               the complaints were made on 27 May 2018 and 10 October 2018 respectively. IMY assesses
                               among other things against this background that the violations refer to the general ones
                               the procedures and violations relating to the two complaints do not constitute the same or

                               connected treatments in the manner referred to in Article 83.3 i
                               data protection regulation.


                               However, IMY considers that Spotify's provision of information covered by article
                               15.1 and 15.2 of the data protection regulation and the provision of the description of
                               the data in the technical log files are interconnected. The

                               the assessment is made, among other things, against the background of the identified deficiencies in these
                               parts relate to the requirements for transparency in the information that Spotify has provided to them
                               registered according to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation under a partial
                               coinciding time period. Furthermore, the complaints are deemed to be connected with

                               each other.

                               IMY must therefore decide on the choice of intervention partly for the identified deficiencies i

                               Spotify's information according to article 15.1 and 15.2 of the data protection regulation and i
                               the description of the data in the technical log files partly for the findings
                               the deficiencies regarding the two complaints.


                               5.3 Deficiencies in information according to article 15.1 and 15.2 i
                               the data protection regulation and in the description of the data i

                               the technical log files

                               IMY has assessed that Spotify has violated articles 12.1, 15.1 a-d, 15.1 g and 15.2 i
                               data protection regulation. Against the background, among other things, that the violations have been able to

                               affect a large number of registrants, that the violations have been going on for a long time and
                               as the deficiencies in the information made it difficult for registered users to take care of their others
                               rights according to the data protection act, it is not a question of minor violations.

                               Spotify must therefore be charged a penalty fee for the violations in this part.

                               IMY states that Spotify has violated articles covered by Article 83.5 i

                               data protection regulation which means that a penalty fee of up to twenty million
                               EUR or four percent of the global annual turnover in the previous financial year,
                               depending on which value is higher, may be imposed.


                               When determining the maximum amount of a penalty charge to be imposed on a company
                               should the definition of the term company be used that the EU Court of Justice uses at the Privacy Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 28(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                application of Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU (see recital 150 i

                                data protection regulation). It appears from the court's practice that this includes every entity
                                that carries out economic activities, regardless of the legal form of the entity and the way of doing so
                                financing as well as even if the unit in the legal sense consists of several physical or

                                legal entities.

                                IMY assesses that the company's turnover is to be used as a basis for calculating the

                                administrative penalty fees that Spotify may impose are Spotify's parent company
                                Spotify Technology S.A. From Spotify Technology S.A.'s annual report for the year 2022

                                it appears that the annual turnover in 2022 was approximately SEK 132,000,000,000. The highest
                                sanction amount that can be determined in the case is four percent of this amount, approx
                                SEK 5,280,000,000.


                                When assessing the seriousness of the violations, IMY takes in addition to what is stated above, i.e.
                                that the violations have been able to affect a large number of registrants, that the violations

                                has been going on for a long time and that the deficiencies in the information made it difficult for data subjects to
                                take advantage of your other rights according to the data protection regulation, also taking into account the following.

                                The violations have entailed a risk that the purpose of the right of access is then thwarted
                                the deficiencies in the information provided made it difficult for data subjects to understand which of
                                their personal data that has been processed and how. The registrant thus does not have

                                nor had the opportunity to check whether the processing was legal. Spotify's
                                processing of personal data further includes a large amount of personal data about each
                                registered and affects many registered users in several different countries.


                                However, as far as has come to light, the data processed are not such special ones
                                categories of personal data specified in Article 9 of the Data Protection Regulation.

                                Processing of personal data that takes place within the framework of a customer relationship at
                                the provision of a music streaming service does not normally get large either

                                consequences for the data subjects. IMY has further, despite the scope of Spotify's
                                personal data processing, only received a few complaints regarding the company's
                                handling access requests.


                                It is also important that Spotify has a challenge in providing comprehensive information
                                about complex personal data processing in a way that is comprehensible to the data subjects

                                which entails difficult trade-offs to assess how the information should best be used
                                is presented. Spotify has provided certain information in accordance with all points in Article 15.1 and
                                15.2 of the data protection regulation. Furthermore, Spotify has provided information about its

                                processing of personal data on several pages on the company's website. Some information about
                                how the personal data was processed can also be read from that copy

                                personal data according to article 15.3 of the data protection regulation that Spotify has
                                provided to the data subjects who requested access and which IMY has generally assessed
                                meet the requirements for clarity in Article 12.1 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                The investigation into the matter further shows that Spotify, on its own initiative and before the relevant date
                                supervisory case was initiated, has taken several measures and put in extensive work to

                                produce, develop and improve processes regarding requests for access that shall be
                                transparent for those registered. These processes and routines have since been developed
                                and continuously improved. According to IMY, this suggests that Spotify intends to fulfill

                                the right of access in a way that is transparent to the data subjects. It also has forward
                                until last year, when the EDPB adopted guidelines on the right of access, was lacking in detail

                                guidance on how the information should be provided and at what level of detail, among other things

                                19 European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidelines on the right of access - Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights
                                – Right of access, (adopted on January 18, 2022 for public consultation and finally adopted on March 28, 2023). Data Protection Agency Diary number: DI-2019-6696 29(30)
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                regarding the degree of individualization of the information to be provided according to article
                                15.1 and 15.2 of the data protection regulation and which language should be used in
                                communication according to Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation.


                                Overall, IMY assesses, against the background of the reported circumstances, that they
                                the violations in question are of low seriousness. The starting point for the calculation

                                of the penalty fee should therefore be set relatively low in relation to the current situation
                                the maximum amount. To ensure a proportional penalty fee in the individual case
                                there are also reasons to further adjust the starting point for it already at this stage

                                continue the calculation downwards, taking into account the high turnover involved
                                basis for the calculation of the penalty fee.


                                In addition to assessing the seriousness of the violation, IMY must assess whether it exists
                                any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that become relevant
                                the amount of the penalty fee. The circumstances which have already been considered at

                                the assessment of the seriousness of the infringement cannot be reconsidered at this stage of
                                the assessment.


                                IMY assesses that there are no further aggravating circumstances that affect
                                the amount of the penalty fee. As a mitigating circumstance, IMY attaches particular importance
                                the possibility for those registered to contact Spotify's customer service through several different

                                channels to receive further individualized information. Furthermore, Spotify has in June 2022
                                informed that the company has made updates to the information in accordance with Article 15 among
                                other for the data subject to understand the specific personal data processing which

                                is applicable to their unique use of the Spotify service. As for the shortcomings
                                regarding Spotify's choice of language for the description of the data in the technical
                                the log files, it is also important that data subjects have had the opportunity to turn to
                                Spotify to have the description translated or explained in its local language and to

                                Spotify provided clear information about this possibility in the "Read Me First" file which
                                submitted in connection with the data being provided to the data subject.


                                Against the background of the seriousness of the violations, aggravating and mitigating
                                circumstances and the high turnover in relation to those established
                                the violations, the IMY determines the administrative penalty fee for Spotify at 58

                                000 000 kroner. In doing so, IMY has assessed that this amount, which corresponds to approximately 1
                                percent of the highest possible sanction amount that can be determined in the case, is
                                effective, proportionate and dissuasive in the present case.


                                5.4 Violations regarding complaints 1 and 2


                                IMY has established that Spotify breached its obligations in relation to the complainants in
                                complaints 1 and 2. However, IMY can state that the complainants in both cases have received
                                access to some of their personal data in a timely manner. Spotify has further, when the appellant in

                                complaint 1 contacted them, were helpful in providing further information and
                                answered questions. Regarding complaint 2, Spotify has not been made aware that
                                the complainant considered that his request for access was not fully met. The appellant has

                                did not turn to Spotify and stated that he was dissatisfied with the company's handling of
                                his request for access why Spotify has had difficulty remedying the shortfall.


                                IMY states that the violations currently in question did not include sensitive ones
                                personal data. Spotify has further taken measures, albeit insufficient, in order to
                                accommodate the appellants' requests. Although the complainants' right of access does not
                                Date: 2023-06-12






                                met fully, the deficiencies that have been present are therefore of a less serious nature
                                character than if the requests had been left unanswered.


                                In an overall assessment, IMY finds that, regarding the violations in complaint 1
                                and 2, are minor violations and that there is therefore reason to waive

                                from imposing a penalty fee on Spotify for the established violations herein
                                part. Spotify must instead be given a reprimand in accordance with Article 58.2 b i
                                data protection regulation.


                                Spotify has stated that the company is happy to cooperate with the complainants directly in order to
                                ensure that it has provided all the data and the information that the complainants

                                searching as well as that it has answered their questions.

                                From information that emerged in the case, the complainant in complaint 1 has turned to Spotify

                                again in July 2020 and subsequently granted access in accordance with Article 15 of the Data Protection Regulation.
                                The complainant received all his personal data, including an explanatory document
                                about the personal data that was processed, within 21 days. The personal data that then

                                were left unencrypted. When the appellant has had his request for access granted
                                if there is no reason to order Spotify to grant access again in accordance with Article 15.


                                Regarding complaint 2, no information has emerged that the complainant has received
                                access to more personal data or more information after the response to the access request
                                in October 2018. Spotify must therefore, with the support of Article 58.2 c of the data protection regulation,

                                ordered to comply with the appellant's request for access pursuant to Article 15 i
                                the data protection regulation by giving the complainant access to all
                                personal data that Spotify processes about him by providing him with a

                                copy of the personal data according to article 15.3 of the data protection regulation as well as
                                information according to article 15.1 a-h and 15.2 of the data protection regulation. Spotify has thereby
                                to take into account the exceptions to the right of access in Article 15.4 of the Data Protection Regulation

                                and ch. 5 the data protection act that can be updated. IMY assesses that access should
                                submitted within one month of this decision becoming legally binding.


                                _____________________________

                                This decision has been taken by the general manager Lena Lindgren Schelin after a presentation

                                by lawyers Karin Ekström and Evelin Palmér. At the final processing has
                                also the head of justice David Törngren and the head of unit Catharina Fernquist participated.




                                Lena Lindgren Schelin, 2023-06-12 (This is an electronic signature)



                                Appendix

                                Appendix 1 - complainant's identification details (complaint 2)

                                Appendix 2 - Spotify's information according to article 15 of the data protection regulation, on 16

                                November through May 16, 2022

                                Appendix 3 – Information on payment of penalty fee