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

Summary

Italy's Garante per la protezione dei dati personali has fined Experian Italia S.p.A. €120,000 for violating GDPR. The credit information agency provided inadequate responses to data subject requests regarding creditworthiness assessments, failing to disclose information about generated scores and the methods used to derive them. The DPA found this practice violated privacy by design and default principles, hindering individuals' ability to exercise their rights.

Full text

Help Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 10273659: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 08:50, 1 September 2026 view source Sf (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators37 edits Tag: Decisions [1.0]Newer edit → (No difference) Revision as of 08:50, 1 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: 120000.0 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. Secondly, the DPA emphasised that in implementing a layered approach the controller 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 Articles 5(1)(a), 12 and 15 GDPR, as the controller failed to describe the score generating method procedure and principles in a way which helps the data subject understand what and how their personal data was used. Similarly, 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. 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(3). The DPA found the controller in violation of the principle of data minimisation pursuant to 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 compliance with data minimisation, that is, that only the necessary data is processed. Finally, the DPA found a violation of privacy by design and default in accordance with Article 25 GDPR. Particularly, as the controller used a file format not designed specifically for the utilities sector, allowing for the transmission of more information than required for the purposes of processing such data. The DPA imposed a fine of €120.000 pursuant to Article 83 GDPR taking into account, inter alia, the fact that this affected 2.094 data subjects. The DPA further ordered the controller revise their internal procedures to include the logic and criteria used, to ensure data subject can fully exercise their rights. Comment Share your comments here! Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the Italian original. Please refer to the Italian original for more details. [Web Doc. No. 10273659] Decision of July 3, 2026 Register of Decisions No. 486 of July 3, 2026 THE DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITY AT today’s meeting, attended by Prof. Pasquale Stanzione, Chair; Prof. Ginevra Cerrina Feroni, Vice Chair; Dr. Agostino Ghiglia, Member; and Dr. Luigi Montuori, Secretary General; HAVING REGARD TO Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016 (hereinafter the “Regulation”); HAVING REGARD TO Legislative Decree No. 196 of June 30, 2003 (Code on Data Protection, hereinafter the “Code”), as amended by Legislative Decree No. 101 of August 10, 2018, containing “Provisions for the alignment of national legislation with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679”; HAVING EXAMINED the documentation on file; HAVING CONSIDERED the observations made by the Secretary General pursuant to Art. 15 of the Data Protection Authority’s Regulation No. 1/2000; RAPPORTEUR: Dr. Agostino Ghiglia; WHEREAS 1. Introduction. This Authority has received several requests concerning the processing of personal data carried out by Experian Italia S.p.A. (hereinafter also referred to as the “Company”) for the purpose of verifying the creditworthiness of potential customers of Hera Comm S.p.A. and EstEnergy S.p.A. Specifically, the complainants alleged that Hera Comm S.p.A. and EstEnergy S.p.A. refused to supply energy to them on the basis of a risk profile of the data subjects that allegedly emerged, following checks carried out by the aforementioned Companies, including through consultation of credit information systems (managed by Experian Italia S.p.A.) and the use of commercial information services (managed by Cerved Group S.p.A.). This risk profile is developed within the Hera Group using software provided by Major 1 S.r.l., called “CGS-X.” This software enables the aforementioned energy suppliers to develop a risk profile regarding the creditworthiness of potential customers, based on an integrated indicator called the “Integrated Utilities Score” (hereinafter also referred to as the “CGS-X Score”). The latter is the result of combining two assessment indicators: one called “ESX Score” (provided by Experian Italia S.p.A.) and the other called “Retail Utilities Score” (provided by Cerved Group S.p.A.

Entities