Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 10273659

Summary

Italy's Garante per la protezione dei dati personali has found a controller in violation of multiple GDPR articles, including those related to data access, fairness, accuracy, and data minimization. The violations stemmed from inadequate responses to data subject requests concerning data scores, limited access rights, and a failure to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures for data processing and privacy by design.

Full text

Help Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 10273659: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 18:50, 1 September 2026 view sourceSf (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators71 editsmTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 07:34, 16 September 2026 view source Sfl (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators567 editsm Line 117: Line 117: Firstly, the DPA held that the responses provided by the controller to the data subjects were inadequate and incomplete, as they did not provide any information as to information pertaining to the score, details about the criteria used to determine the score, nor the method used to generate the score. Similarly, the DPA emphasised that in implementing a layered approach the controller further limited the right of access to data subjects, and added no value to their new procedures. Thus, the DPA found the controller in violation of [[Article 12 GDPR]] and [[Article 15 GDPR]], as the controller failed in its response to respond in a way which helps the data subject understand what and how their personal data was used.Firstly, the DPA held that the responses provided by the controller to the data subjects were inadequate and incomplete, as they did not provide any information as to information pertaining to the score, details about the criteria used to determine the score, nor the method used to generate the score. Similarly, the DPA emphasised that in implementing a layered approach the controller further limited the right of access to data subjects, and added no value to their new procedures. Thus, the DPA found the controller in violation of [[Article 12 GDPR]] and [[Article 15 GDPR]], as the controller failed in its response to respond in a way which helps the data subject understand what and how their personal data was used. Additionally, the DPA held that the use of the new internal procedure and persistent inadequate responses, prevented data subjects from determining the lawfulness, fairness and accuracy of the data violating [[Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR|Article 5(1)(a) GDPR]]. This undermined their ability to exercise their right to rectification pursuant to [[Article 16 GDPR]], and right to obtain human intervention, express their opinion and challenge the decision made, pursuant to [[Article 22 GDPR|Article 22(3) GDPR]].Additionally, the DPA held that the use of the new internal procedure and persistent inadequate responses, prevented data subjects from determining the lawfulness, fairness and accuracy of the data violating [[Article 5 GDPR#1a|Article 5(1)(a) GDPR]]. This undermined their ability to exercise their right to rectification pursuant to [[Article 16 GDPR]], and right to obtain human intervention, express their opinion and challenge the decision made, pursuant to [[Article 22 GDPR#3|Article 22(3) GDPR]]. The DPA found the controller in violation of the principle of data minimisation pursuant to [[Article 5 GDPR|Article (5)(1)(c) GDPR]]. This was based on the the fact that the controller failed to implement adequate technical and organisational measures specific to identifying the procedures which define the methods whereby the data necessary to generate the scores are transmitted. Furthermore, the DPA held that the controller failed to implement default settings ensuring only the necessary data is processed for the generation of the score.The DPA found the controller in violation of the principle of data minimisation pursuant to [[Article 5 GDPR#1c|Article (5)(1)(c) GDPR]]. This was based on the the fact that the controller failed to implement adequate technical and organisational measures specific to identifying the procedures which define the methods whereby the data necessary to generate the scores are transmitted. Furthermore, the DPA held that the controller failed to implement default settings ensuring only the necessary data is processed for the generation of the score. Finally, the DPA found a violation of privacy by design and default in accordance with [[Article 25 GDPR]] as the controller used a file format not designed specifically for the utilities sector, failing to ensure adequate and effective data protection by design and default.Finally, the DPA found a violation of privacy by design and default in accordance with [[Article 25 GDPR]] as the controller used a file format not designed specifically for the utilities sector, failing to ensure adequate and effective data protection by design and default. Latest revision as of 07:34, 16 September 2026 Garante per la protezione dei dati personali - 10273659 Authority: Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) Jurisdiction: Italy Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(c) GDPR Article 12 GDPR Article 15 GDPR Article 25 GDPR Type: Complaint Outcome: Upheld Started: Decided: Published: Fine: 120.000 EUR Parties: Experian Italia S.p.A National Case Number/Name: 10273659 European Case Law Identifier: n/a Appeal: n/a Original Language(s): Italian Original Source: Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (in IT) Initial Contributor: sf The DPA fined an Italian credit information agency €120,000 for providing inadequate responses to data subject requests and violating privacy by design and default which actively prevented data subjects from exercising their rights. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts The DPA received several complaints from data subjects concerning Experian Italia S.p.A (the controller) an Italian credit information system. The controller was processing the personal data of data subjects for the purpose of verifying the creditworthiness of potential customers of two energy suppliers. As a result of the risk profiles attributed to them, data subjects were declined the supply of energy. When data subjects requested access from the controller to their data under Article 15 GDPR, they were informed that their databases did not contain negative information or adverse events which would justify the denial of energy supply. The DPA conducted an investigation, and found that the controller transmits, to the processor, a file which was initially designed to include extensive details about variables used to calculate the scores, and only later limited to the information necessary to calculate the score. Further, the DPA found that the controller limited its responses to data subjects, only to the personal data present in the credit information system, and did not provide reference to the generated score and sub-scores assigned to them. The DPA further established that even when a data subject was not present in the credit information system, a score was nevertheless assigned to them. The controller claimed that unless the requests by the data subjects pertained specifically to the scores, their response, providing the data present in the credit information system, was adequate. The controller further emphasised that, as a result of strengthening their internal procedures they implemented a layered approach within which only upon request by the data subject, would the controller provide them with more detail and comprehensible information. Holding Firstly, the DPA held that the responses provided by the controller to the data subjects were inadequate and incomplete, as they did not provide any information as to information pertaining to the score, details about the criteria used to determine the score, nor the method used to generate the score. Similarly, the DPA emphasised that in implementing a layered approach the controller further limited the right of access to data subjects, and added no value to their new procedures. Thus, the DPA found the controller in violation of Article 12 GDPR and Article 15 GDPR, as the co

Entities