IAB Europe GIG: Working Paper on Data Subject Requests

WHITE PAPER
IAB Europe
Guidance
Date goes here
Five Practical Steps to help companies comply with the
E-Privacy Directive
IAB Europe
GDPR Implementation Working Group
Version 1.0
6 April 2018
DATA SUBJECT REQUESTS
Working Paper 04/2018

About IAB Europe
IAB Europe is the voice of digital business and the leading European-level industry association for
the interactive advertising ecosystem. Its mission is to promote the development of this innovative
sector by shaping the regulatory environment, investing in research and education, and developing
and facilitating the uptake of business standards.
About the GDPR Implementation
Group
IAB Europe’s GDPR Implementation Working Group brings together leading experts from across the
digital advertising industry to discuss the European Union’s new data protection law, share best
practices, and agree on common interpretations and industry positioning on the most important
issues for the digital advertising sector. The GDPR Implementation Working Group is a member-
driven forum for discussion and thought leadership, its important contribution to the digital
advertising industry’s GDPR compliance efforts is only possible thanks to the work and leadership
of its many participating members.
Acknowledgements
This working paper has been prepared by the members of the IAB Europe GDPR Implementation
Group under the leadership of Noga Rosenthal, Chief Privacy Officer at Epsilon/Conversant LLC.
Contacts
Matthias Matthiesen (matthiesen@iabeurope.eu)
Director – Privacy & Public Policy, IAB Europe
Chris Hartsuiker (hartsuiker@iabeurope.eu)
Public Policy Officer, IAB Europe

Working Paper 4 – Data Subject Requests 3
Contents
Overview ............................................................................................................4
Data Subject Requests .........................................................................................4
Step #1: Processor vs. Controller ................................................................................ 5
Step #2: Exception to Data Rights ............................................................................... 6
Step #3: Policy .......................................................................................................... 8
Email or Website.............................................................................................................................8
Verification of Data Subject Information ......................................................................................9
Records.........................................................................................................................................11
Training.........................................................................................................................................12
Specific Data Subject Rights ......................................................................................12
Information...................................................................................................................................12
Right of Access..............................................................................................................................12
Copy of the personal data being processed................................................................................13
Automated Processing: Profiling? ...............................................................................................13
Trade Secrets................................................................................................................................14
Refusal..........................................................................................................................................15
Method of Transfer.......................................................................................................................15
Fees...............................................................................................................................................15
Timing...........................................................................................................................................16
Right to rectification ....................................................................................................................16
Right of Erasure............................................................................................................................17
Right to restriction of processing ................................................................................................19
Right to data portability...............................................................................................................20
Right to object..............................................................................................................................22
The obligation to notify relevant third parties............................................................................22
Five steps to take now: .............................................................................................23

Overview
On 27 April 2016, the European Union adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).1
GDPR will become directly applicable law in the European Union (“EU”) and European Economic
Area (“EEA”) on 25 May 2018, superseding national data protection laws currently in place.
The GDPR will not only apply to companies based in the EU but also to companies all over the globe
offering goods and services to people based in the territory of the Union, or monitoring the
behaviour of individuals located within it. Data protection law regulates the processing of personal
data, defined broadly as any information that relates to an identified or identifiable natural person,
which may include, amongst others, online and device identifiers that can be used to single out a
natural person, for example for digital advertising purposes.
GDPR grants data protection authorities the power to levy significant administrative fines against
businesses found in breach of the law. Depending on the severity of the infringement, fines can
reach up to €20,000,000 or 4 per cent of a company’s annual global turnover – whichever is higher.
Member states can also introduce additional criminal sanctions for breach of GDPR.
This document has been prepared by members of the IAB Europe GDPR Implementation Group
(GIG) to provide guidance to companies across the globe on data subject rights.
Data Subject Requests
The GDPRexpands and strengthens the existing datarights provided to datasubjects under EUdata
protection law, as outlined in Chapter III of GDPR, Rights of the Data Subject. It also creates
additional rights concerning “personal data” collected by or under the management of controllers.
This data may in turn be processed by their service providers or processors.2
Depending on the
circumstances, data subjects may request to see their data held by the controller, request that the
data be corrected or deleted, ask the data controller to cease or restrict processing of the data,
and/or ask for the personal data to be ported over to another service provider.
A number of open questions have arisen around the digital marketing’s compliance with these data
rights. In particular, these data subject rights are challenging because these digital marketing
1
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection
of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General DataProtection Regulation), hereinafter ‘GDPR’, available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/.
2
Controllers are directly affected by the rights afforded to data subjects under the GDPR. Organisations that
act as processors are affected to a lesser degree, but should still be aware of these rights as they should be
supporting the controller in responding to data subject requests. For instance, a processor may need to
implement technological changes to enable the controller to comply with the data subject access rights. GIG
recommends that both controllers and processors begin looking at their system to ensure that they have a
policy and a process in place to properly respond to data subject rights.

companies traditionally hold pseudonymous data and do not always have direct relationships with
individuals. For instance, a personal data touchpoint can be something as simple as a cookie
identifier or mobile device ID.
The purpose of this document is to provide members of the digital marketing sector, including
advertising technology companies, with an analysis of these rights and a better understanding of
options on how to respond. This document will also provide companies with some basic
compliance recommendations to review with their legal counsel to help them comply with these
data subject rights.
It is crucial to emphasise that every technology platform in the digital marketing sector is
unique, providing various services to its clients. Consequently, each company will implement
processes and procedures that are particular to that company, resulting in different
responses to data subject rights obligations. The intention of this document is to provide general
guidance, thoughts, and options on how to comply with and respond to data subject rights.
Companies should review this guidance, as it applies to their unique systems, with their legal
counsel.
Further, interwoven into this document is the recommendation that companies take into
consideration other data protection practices promulgated under GDPR. For instance, the principle
of data minimisation requires that organisations should only process personal data to the extent
necessary in order to achieve their processing purposes. Companies may consider taking further
pseudonymisation or data aggregation steps, or even data deletion steps to comply with the data
subject rights. Again, not all companies can undertake the same data minimisation,
pseudonymisation, data aggregation or data erasure steps taken by other companies.
This document may be updated as more guidance is provided by regulators or due to feedback from
IAB Europe members.
Step #1: Processor vs. Controller
One of the first steps that organisations in the digital advertising ecosystem need to undertake for
compliance with these rights is to review GDPR itself and ensure that they understand how these
rights affect their unique services and processes. In particular, digital marketing companies should
first determine if they are a controller,3
processor,4
or joint-controller5
or independent data
controllers6
in order to define which parties should be responding to the data subject.7
Each
distinction will pose different responsibilities in relation to the personal data they receive and
process. IAB Europe’s GDPR Implementation Group (GIG) will be providing guidance to members of
3
Article 4(7) GDPR.
4
Article 4(8) GDPR.
5
Article 26 GDPR.
6
Even if both companies are controllers does not necessarily mean that the companies are joint controllers.
Instead, companies could be separate and independent controllers.
7
Article 29 Working Party: ‘Opinion 2/2010 on online behavioural advertising’, adopted 22 June 2010,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-
recommendation/files/2010/wp171_en.pdf. The WP29 states in this document that “when behavioural
advertising entails the processing of personal data, ad network providers also play the role of data controller.”

IAB Europe about factors they may consider when determining if they are a controller, processor or
joint-controller in a separate guidance document.
All organisations that act as a controller are likely to be directly affected by data subject rights. In
turn, processors may need to help controllers handle these data subject rights. For instance,
processors may need to implement technological changes that facilitate the controller’s obligation
under GDPR to respond to data subject rights.
Data processors should not reply directly to access requests, unless directed by the controller
in a contract or otherwise. Controllers should expressly indicate each party's role in responding
to data subject rights in their contract or data processing agreement/addendum. Unless directed
by the controller, processors may not directly respond to a data subject access request or divulge
the data subject’s information without the controller’s instructions. Doing so may be deemed a
personal data breach, which includes an “unauthorised disclosure of […] personal data”8
though the
risk is minimized since the data is pseudonymized data (see the definition below). Further, a
processor risks being deemed a controller if they begin responding to data subject rights requests
without instructions or notification to the controller.
Step #2: Exception to Data Rights
The second step is determining whether digital marketing companies fall under one of the
exceptions to responding to data subject rights. Under Article 11, if the controller processes
personal data that does not require the identification of the data subject, the controller shall not be
obligated to maintain, acquire, or process additional information in order to identify the data
subject for the sole purpose of complying with GDPR9
. Article 12 of GDPR also states that a controller
may refuse “to act on the request of a data subject for exercising his or her rights under Article 15 to
22” if the controller “demonstrates that it is not in the position to identify the data subject.”
Most digital marketing companies collect, process and share pseudonymous data, which is
personal data that cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional
information.10
Such additional information may be kept separately, “subject to the technical and
organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or
identifiable natural person.”11
For instance, digital marketing companies traditionally collect and
process identifiers, such as a cookie IDs or mobile device ID, or other pseudonymous information,
which identify a browser or a device, and not an individual. They do not collect, receive or maintain
personal information such as the name “John Smith.”
In order to properly respond to a data subject right request, digital marketing companies would
have to obtain additional information from a third-party company, such as a vendor, or the data
8
Article 4(12) GDPR.
9
Recital 64 of GDPR states that controllers use reasonable measures to verify the identity of a data subject
who requests access, in particular in the context of online services and online identifiers.” This leaves open
the question as to what is reasonable in the pseudonymous context.
10
Article 4(5) GDPR, definition of pseudonymisation.
11
Ibid.

subject themselves, to identify and verify a particular individual based on the cookie ID or mobile
device ID they hold. This additional data would be required to actually identify an individual.
In the example above, if an individual sends his name, e.g., John Smith, to an ad
tech company, the ad tech company does not have such non-pseudonymised
personal information on its system to provide information linked to the name. In
this example, a controller would have to acquire and process additional
information from a third party vendor in order to identify the data subject for the
sole purpose of complying with GDPR.
More concerning, how can digital marketing companies that rely on pseudonymous data ever
confirm that the data belongs to the requestor? They are not in the position to directly identify the
data subject and the personal data is not attributable to a specific data subject. Without the
individual’s name and address, how can digital marketing companies confirm that a cookie or
mobile device ID is associated with a browser or mobile apps that belong to the individual making
the data subject request even if the person supplies her name and address? Even with a name and
address, digital marketing companies cannot tie that information to the pseudonymous data on
their system.
An abusive husband, for instance, could submit his wife’s laptop’s cookie ID to a digital marketing
company asking for access to the data tied to the cookie ID. The digital marketing company does
not have the capability to verify that the cookie ID or mobile device ID belongs to the husband or
the wife. The digital marketing company’s actions could result in a personal data breach due to
accidental or “unauthorised disclosure of or access to,” personal data of one person to another
person.12
It is nearly impossible for a digital marketing company to truly verify a person’s ownership
of a cookie ID or other identifier such as mobile device ID. The company could respond to the
husband, for instance, with the wife’s web browsing history.
The inability to verify that data belongs to the requestor begs the initial question: should
digital marketing companies that only collect pseudonymous data respond to data subject
right requests?
It is important for companies to evaluate whether they should respond to data subject rights, on a
case-by-case basis, and document their reasoning. This analysis is crucial as European regulators
have taken various positions on responding to data subject rights. For instance, the UK’s
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) seems to bolster the view that subject access requests
(SAR) must be responded to whenever possible. As stated in the ICO’s ‘Subject Access Code of
Practice’: “the [Data Protection Act] places a high expectation on you to provide information in
response to an SAR.”13
On the other hand, German regulators express caution in their short paper
about data subject rights, recommending that companies consider other rights and freedoms, such
12
Article 4(12), GDPR.
13
UK Information Commissioner’s Office: Subject Access Code of Practice Version 1.2, 6 September 2017, page
28, available at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2014223/subject-access-code-of-
practice.pdf.

as intellectual property rights and company secrets.14
Other Data Protection Authorities have
recommended that if a company is unable to verify the individual’s identity, then it may look into
providing the individual with information around how it creates its audience segments, but not
necessarily provide the individual which the individual’s particular segment.
Companies should review the options around responding to data subject rights with their outside
counsel and determine whether to respond at all. Once a determination has been made, it is
strongly recommended that companies create an internal policy for responding to data
subject rights, and also for all interactions with data subject access requests, particularly the
reasons for denying such a request.
Step #3: Policy
If a company determines that it has an obligation to respond to data subject rights requests, then
we recommend that the company create. an internal, written policy around its data access
response procedures. For instance, this policy should set forth which data subject identifiers (e.g.,
cookie ID’s or mobile advertising ID’s)15
must be provided and the required verification information,
as well as lay out the company’s process for responding to such requests. In terms of process,
companies should clearly state in writing that they are prepared to deal with a request, state the
process for verifying or otherwise authenticating the ownership of the browser or device, enable
searches to be run on the data subject identifier, and that the data can be located, reviewed and
redacted if needed. The policy should also outline a retention period for maintaining the data
subject’s rights requests and company responses. In other words, if a data subject makes a request
on 1 January 2019, how long will the company retain both the correspondence between the data
subject and the company, and (as applicable) any output from the request?
Companies do not need to respond to data subject requests pertaining to data they have deleted,
de-identified or anonymized, thus rendering it outside the scope of GDPR. Therefore, companies
should consider implementing robust data retention policies not only to ensure compliance with
GDPR but also to help limit the scope of their data access responses to data subject rights requests.
Email or Website
At the very least, a company should make publicly available an email address that individuals can
use to make these requests. This email address may be the account used to contact the company’s
Data Protection Officer. Companies should consider taking steps to ensure that the email account
is closely monitored, including during times the recipient or main person responding to such
requests is on holiday or leaves the company. A company may also want to add a CAPTCHA or other
14
Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit: Informationspflichten bei Dritt- und
Direkterhebung, available at https://www.bfdi.bund.de/DE/Home/Kurzmeldungen/DSGVO_Kurzpapiere1-
3.html.
15
Examples of data subject identifiers include cookie identifiers and mobile device IDs.

mechanism to ensure that the requestor is a bona fide individual (e.g., privacy@company.com may
be changed to email address Privacy AT Company .com).
A company may also havea website page thatoutlines its procedures for responding to datasubject
right requests. (See below for recommended steps for verification of data subject information). At
least one person should be responsible for responding to the data subject requests whether
provided via the website, postal mail, email or the company’s social media site.
Verification of Data Subject Information
Upon receipt of a data subject success request, companies should take reasonable steps to confirm
they have received a bona fide data subject right request to avoid processing a data subject request
filed by an individual other than the authorized data subject. To mitigate against false claims,
companies should verify the identity of the data subject, to ensure it does not “adversely affect the
rights and freedoms of others.”16
This is particularly relevant for digital marketing companies which
hold pseudonymous data.
It is also relevant where a single browser or device is shared by several individuals, resulting in a
cookie ID being assigned to several individuals.17
Further, an open question is how to respond to
data subject right requests from an agent of a data subject. How does one verify that the agent has
the right to request data subject requests of the individual? Companies may ask individuals to visit
the companies’ website and fill in a form to verify their identity and that the device ID was assigned
to their device or access their website portal that verifies the device ID, pursuant to Article 12(6)
GDPR.
It’s important to note here that this verification process again raises a challenge for digital
marketing companies. If a company maintains non-pseudonymised personal data, such as email
addresses, it may send a verification link to the email account provided by the individual, ensuring
that the data subject is the owner of that email address. There is no way for digital marketing
companies holding only pseudonymised to verify the individual in this manner. However, despite
not having the individual’s name and address, there is potential that a digital marketing company
should not refuse to provide data to the data subject and should instead attempt to verify the
individual’s right to the data, which includes taking reasonable steps at authenticating the data
subject.18
Digital marketing companies which only process pseudonymous data should respond only to
data subject requests tied to the identifier they use. These identifiers may include cookie IDs
and mobile device IDs. If the data subject sends in her name, email address, or IP Address,19
digital
16
Article 15(4) GDPR.
17
Alan Chapell: Is All Personal Data Equal Under the Law?, June 13, 2016, available at
https://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/personal-data-equal-law/.
18
Recital 63 GDPR.
19
If a data subject sends in their IP address, the working group recommends that the digital marketing
company respond with a request for further information as IP addresses can be dynamic and they are more
likely to be shared than cookie or mobile id’s. Since this is not being used as an identifier and it is more likely
to be shared by other data subjects, the working group determined that it is reasonable to ask the data subject

marketing companies should first request additional information from the data subject. This may
include the actual cookie or mobile identifier20
from the individual, which digital marketing
companies are entitled to receive under Article 12(6) GDPR. If a data subject objects to providing
the requested information, digital marketing may respond that they cannot complete the subject
access request without first validating that the person making the request is entitled to receive the
data.21
Also, if a website operator or mobile app provider (the first party) wishes to respond to a data
subject right request that is tied to personal data held by digital marketing partners (the third
party), it will need to point data subjects to its third party partners’ site tofulfil such requests.
For instance, if an individual went to a website and asked for access to her personal data collected
by the website operator’s partners, the website would not be able to reach out to its third party
partners to request that the partner provide data on the individual. It could not, for instance, send
the data subject’s name and email address to the third party for the third party to look up that
individual’s information since the digital marketing company does not hold such identifiable data.
Instead, the website operator should point the data subject to the digital marketing company’s site
where the company describes how it responds to data subject requests so that the company can
ask for and verify via the identifier they use. Again, these identifiers may include cookie IDs and
mobile device IDs.
Furthermore, once the data subject submits a request and provides an identifier, the digital
marketing company could ask the data subject for a screenshot of the identifier to validate
the request or the company could build a mechanism to automatically read the cookie from
the individual’s browser. If necessary, in the email requesting more information, digital marketing
companies may (1) reference to Article 12(6), (2) explain how data subjects can locate their cookie
or mobile identifier on their devices, and (3) remind the data subject that each browser will have a
different set of cookies, and that the data subject’s response will be tied to that particular browser.
Again, the fear is that if the data subject refuses to provide the requested screenshot, companies
cannot verify the authenticity of the request.
In addition to, or as an alternative, companies might request a declaration or affidavit from the data
subject confirming that the data subject owns and operates the browser or mobile device and that
the data subject has the right to make the data access request. If two people share a device or
browser, then companies should consider having both individuals sign the affidavit or declaration.
While some companies may request copies of the data subject’s government-issued identification
paper for verification, digital marketing companies that do not typically collect non-
pseudonymised personalized may not want to obtain and store such information, thereby
subjecting themselves to more stringent data protection requirements tied to identifiable personal
for more information including asking the data subject to provide a mobile ID or cookie ID to help better
pinpoint the data subject.
20
Individuals may copy and paste their cookie ID from their browser or mobile device ID Google Android
Device (which currently is accessible via their Menu>Settings>About Phone>Status. Individuals may also
install a third party mobile app to obtain a mobile device id.
21
Article 12(6) GDPR.

data. Further, there is no way to link the individual’s name that appears on the identification to the
cookie ID or other digital identifiers since these are rarely linked in the digital marketing world.
Again, digital marketing companies may explain their data subject right procedures and verification
process ona page on their website. Companies may also use a datasubject rightform to help collect
the information needed to process a data subject right request. However, companies cannot force
a data subject to use this form.22
Should companies receive a data subject request through some
other channel, such as via an email or social media, they should refer the individual to their data
subject right web page or ask the individual to contact the company via designated email (e.g.,
privacy@company.com).
In summary, because of the difficulty of verifying if a cookie or mobile ID truly belongs to the data
subject requestor, and the fear of disclosing personal data to the wrong individual and thereby
“adversely affect the rights and freedoms23
” of another individual, companies should consider
which of the following steps they will take once they receive a data subject rights request:
1. Recording and demonstrating that the company is not in a position to identify the data
subject and informing the data subject that they will not respond to the request;24
2. Providing information25
in its privacy notice or otherwise with instructions around how to
responding to data subject rights requests, including the fact that a data subject must
provide certain information, such as a screen shot of the relevant ID and/or requesting a
declaration or affidavit that the ID belongs to the data subject, before the company will
respond to the request; or
3. Creating a webpage that will enable a company to check the data subject’s cookie on that
browser and respond to the data subject rights request after the check.
Records
Digital marketing companies should maintain records of all data subject right requests they receive
and all data access responses they issue, to demonstrate compliance. If a request is made via a
website portal, companies may want to retain certain information for record keeping purposes to
demonstrate compliance with data subject right request (e.g., cookie ID plus timestamp). This
record may include the data subject request itself, the date of the request, the company’s response
(which may include a denial), the date of the response, along with a copy of the individual’s
identifier, proof of verification, and who handled the request. Companies may need to provide this
information as evidence upon a supervisory authority inquiry. In fact, companies should keep
records of all correspondence with the individual concerned for a set retention period of 18-
36 months at least.26
GIG members agreed that this data may be retained outside companies’
22
UK Information Commissioner’s Office: Subject Access Code of Practice Version 1.2, 6 September 2017,
page 7, available at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2014223/subject-access-code-
of-practice.pdf.
23
Article 15(4) GDPR.
24
Article 11 GDPR.
25
Article 12(1) GDPR.
26
This retention period is based on unofficial feedback from Data Protection Authorities.

standard retention periods for data retained for their services, as this is separate data, processed
for separate purposes and under a different legal basis (compliance with the law).27
Training
Digital marketing companies must train their personnel to respond to these data subject right
request, according to their policy. The internal policy should be readily available in a central
location, such as the company’s intranet. In the company’s generaldata protection training, all staff
members should be trained to recognise GDPR data subject right requests, evenif the requests itself
are not identified as such. For example, an individual may request to know what data the company
is holding or using without mentionof GDPR and without labelling her inquiry as a data subject right
request. More detailed training on handling these data subject rights should beprovided to relevant
staff. Specifically, the marketing department, the data protection team, and the legal department
will need more tailored training as they may be more involved in handling these requests.
Companies should also provide a hierarchy to enable staff members to flag an issue to senior
managers, should a data subject be dissatisfied with the initial data access response. The senior
manager should then review the response and determine next steps.
Specific Data Subject Rights
Information
Data controllers must communicate transparently with data subjects about the processing of their
personal data.28
Such communications must be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible, and
easily accessible manner, using clear and plain language.29
The controller must provide the data
subject with the information outlined in Chapter III, Section 2, Articles 13-14 of GDPR. This
document will not concentrate on this provision.30
Right of Access
Under GDPR, data subjects have the right to ask a data controller if it is processing their personal
data.31
Upon a data subject rights request, and subject to certain exceptions, the controller must
27
Article 6(1)(c) GDPR.
28
Article 13 GDPR.
29
Further guidance around this requirement may be provided by IAB Europe. Readers may also view the
Information Commissioner’s Office guidance around Transparency for further guidance,
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/privacy-notices-transparency-and-control/.
30
Under Article 15(2), where personal data is transferred to a third country or to an international organisation,
the data subject shall have the right to be informed of the appropriate safeguard pursuant to Article 46
relating to that transfer. Meaning, the data subject should be informed if the Personal Data was transferred
to a third country based on standard contractual clauses or Privacy Shield.
31
Article 15 GDPR.

give the data subject the following information, which may be included in companies’ privacy
notice or other public facing document:32
1. Whether the subject’s personal data is processed;
2. The purposes of processing;
3. The categories of data being processed;
4. The categories of recipients with whom data may be shared, in particular recipients in third
countries (non-EU countries) or international organisations;33
5. The retention period;
6. The data subject’s rights to rectify or erase personal data, and right to restrict or object to
the processing of personal data;
7. The right to bring a complaint to a supervisory authority;
8. Information as to the source of the data, if not collected directly from the data subject;
9. Information about the existence of any automated processing, including profiling, referred
to in Article 22(1) and (4) that has a significant effect on data subjects, along with the
parameters of such automated decisions; and
10. A copy of the personal data being processed (if requested).
Copy of the personal data being processed
Controllers must disclose a copy of the personal data they process if requested by the data subject
unless subject to certain exceptions.34
It is important to understand that the personal data set
disclosed to the data subject will vary by company. For instance, disclosure requirements will vary
depending on whether the company is classified as a processor or a controller. A data processor,
such as a technology platform, that receives a direct request should not disclose controller data
unless instructed to do so by the controller.
Digital marketing companies could consider doing a “table-top exercise” before the GDPR goes into
effect, testing what data they would divulge when they receive a request connected to a digital
identifier. Also, since it is nearly impossible for companies to verify the identity of the data
requestor, companies could consider not divulging raw data (e.g., browsing history or click stream
data) to the requestor. Providing the data subject with their audience segments may be sufficient.
This is because the consequences of having a personal data breach or violating the data protection
rights of an individual outweighs the need to divulge such raw data to the requestor. It may also
result in harming a company by revealing its trade secrets (see discussion below).
Automated Processing: Profiling?
32
Article 13 GDPR.
33
Under Article 15(2) GDPR, where personal data is transferred to a third country or to an international
organisation, the data subject shall have the right to be informed of the appropriate safeguard pursuant to
Article 46 relating to that transfer. Meaning, the data subject should be informed if the Personal Data was
transferred to a third country based on standard contractual clauses or Privacy Shield.
34
E.g., Article 15(4), the right to obtain a copy referred to in paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect the rights
and freedoms of others.

Under the GDPR, companies are also required to divulge information about the existence and
parameters of any automated processing, including profiling, that has a significant effect on data
subjects. “Profiling” is defined as
“any form of automated processing of personal data consisting of the use of personal data to
evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural person, in particular to analyse or
predict aspects concerning that natural person’s performance at work, economic situation,
health, personal preferences, interests, reliability, behaviour, location or movements.”35
Profiling becomes relevant when its conclusions and categorizations trigger automated decision-
making.
The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29) has published guidelines on the definitions of
automated decision-making and profiling, as well as which decisions have a legal or “similarly
significant”effect.36
“Legaleffects” are those that havean impactonanindividual’s legal rights such
as having an effect on a person’s legal status. Additionally, “significant effects” are those effects
that are equivalent or similarly significant to legal effects. The Article 29 Data Protection Working
Party expressly stated that typical interest-based advertising will not have a similarly significant
effect,37
as it is unlikely that an advertisement (which an individual can choose to ignore) will have
a legal or significant effect on data subjects.
However, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party did provide considerations to help digital
marketing companies determine whether their business practices could have a significant effect on
an individual, such as (a) the intrusiveness of the profiling process; (b) the expectations and wishes
of the individual; (c) the way the advertisement is delivered; and (d) the particular vulnerabilities of
the individuals served with relevant advertisements. For instance, the Article 29 Data Protection
Working Party noted that price differential can have a significant effect on an individual.38
Digital marketing companies - and the websites and mobile applications they support - should
be transparent about their business practices. At the very least, they should disclose if
personalized advertising is occurring on their site, which technologies they use to deliver that
advertising, that the data subject may opt-out at any time, and how the data subject may do
so. They should also review the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party’s guidance around when
their actions may be bucketed into being considered “profiling.”
Trade Secrets
The GDPR provides that no one individual’s personal data access rights should adversely affect the
rights or freedoms of the company or other individuals, including trade secrets or intellectual
property, and in particular copyrights protecting software.39
Companies are understandably
35
Article 4(4) GDPR.
36
Article 29 Working Party: Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the
purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (wp 251 rev01).
37
WP29 Profiling Guidelines (wp 251 rev01), p. 22.
38
Ibid.
39
Recital 64 GDPR.

concerned about revealing trade secrets when responding to a data subject access requests.
Specifically, companies worry that a bad actor or competitor could reverse engineer trade secrets
from data turned over pursuant to a data access or data portability requests. Digital marketing
companies should not provide data that may reveal trade secrets- e.g., if the release of the
parameters of automated decision making would involve the release of trade secrets.
However, though digital marketing companies can limit the scope of the data released if such
release may harm the company or its intellectual property, they may not refuse to release any
data at all. They should also document the logic behind why the release of such information
would lead to a revelation of a trade secret.
Refusal
Digital marketing companies must provide a valid reason for refusing to provide data to a data
subject. For instance, if a digital marketing company is a processor or is unable to verify the
individual’s identity, then it must provide this reason to the data subject. It is important to note that
the bar for refusing data access rights is high, as evidenced in the Dawson-Damer case.40
It should
be noted, though, that the Dawson-Damer case involved personal data that was identifiable to the
individual. Further, as noted before, the German regulators have offered more leeway for refusals.
Digital marketing companies also must inform individuals of their rights to lodge a complaint with
the supervisory authority and seek judicial relief.
Method of Transfer
Digital marketing companies should also have a method to ‘transfer’ or provide access to the data
in response to any data subject access requests. GDPR states that, where possible, “the controller
should be able to provide remote access to a secure system which would provide the data subject with
direct access to his or her personal data.”41
Therefore, digital marketing companies might consider
developing or implementing systems to provide data subjects with remote access to the data held
by that company, once the individual’s identity is verified. Companies should work towards
ensuring that this data is provided to the individual in a secure manner.
Fees
Under Article 12(5) of the GDPR, controllers may no longer charge a reasonable fee for responding
to data subject requests. Article 12(5) states that “information provided under Articles 13 and 14 and
any communication and any actions taken under Articles 15 to 22 and 34 of GDPR shall be provided
free of charge.” The initial copy of the data access response must be free of charge, but controllers
40
The Dawson-Damer case is available here, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/74.html. For
further discussion on this topic, please visit, “ICO guidance: a good re-SAR-It for controllers?” by Alexander
de Gaye, http://privacylawblog.fieldfisher.com/2017/ico-guidance-a-good-re-sar-lt-for-controllers/.
41
See, e.g., where the Federal Court of Germany clarified though a credit rating company needed to make
credit scoring more transparent, it did not have to disclose its algorithm model in order to protect the credit
reference agencies’ trade secrets. Press release of the judgement available at
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=2ef8cefa0
3b7d0493f54c1bc71ee0a53&anz=1&po s=0&nr=66583&linked=pm&Blank=1 (last accessed 28 February 2018).

may charge a reasonable fee for further copies.42
For instance, if a data subject, or an intermediary
on behalf of data subjects, makes multiple data access requests, then digital marketing companies
can consider charging a reasonable fee, based on administrative costs, for any further copies
requested. This means that an intermediary may be charged a fee if it makes multiple data subject
requests on behalf of various individuals. The data controller bears the burden of proof to show
why a request is excessive, and thus necessitates a fee. Therefore, they should document the
number of data subject’s requests in order to demonstrate that they were excessive and
burdensome.
Timing
A controller must respond to the data subject requests iterated under Articles 15 to 22 without
“unduedelayandin anyevent within onemonth of receipt of the request.”43
If a request is too complex
to address within one month, then this can be extended to three months. However, the controller
shall inform the datasubject of any suchextension, and the reasonfor such delay, withinone month
of receipt of the request.44
Controllers should be mindful that they bear the burden of proving
that a request is “complex,” and digital marketing companies should document their
arguments for concluding that this request warrants extended time.
Again, digital marketing companies should consider maintaining records of any and all
communications with data subjects, including exchanges beyond the initial request and response.
These additional exchanges between the digital marketing companies and the data subject may
cause discussions to extend beyond the one-month period. If they do, the digital marketing
company’s records would demonstrate that it needed additional, necessary information to respond
to the data subject request and that the time for responding to the request did not run until the
company received all the necessary information. As stated before, the correspondence (and
underlying personal data responses) with each data subject should be retained for a period of
18-24 months at least.
Right to rectification
“Taking into account the purposes of the processing,” individuals have the right to require a
controller to rectify any errors in its records of their personal data. Such corrections may include
completing incomplete personal data where appropriate by means of a supplementary
statement.45
Companies should create a policy for the rectification process, which must include
verifying the data subject’s identity prior to making any changes.
Certain companies that create audience segments (e.g., website visitors that are interested in
“Shoes”) may be able to adjust a data subject’s audience segment per a data subject request (e.g.,
switching the data subject’s categorization from “Potentially visiting France” to “Homebody”). The
42
Article 12(5) GDPR.
43
Article 12(3) GDPR.
44
Ibid.
45
Article 16 GDPR.

resulting change may not be reflected until the digital marketing company encounters the data
subject on another website.
Keeping data minimisation principles in mind, an alternative position is that digital marketing
companies could implement their policy and procedures around the right of erasure (see Right
of Erasure, below). To be clear, digital marketing companies may not be able to rectify the raw
data underlying their audience segments, such as the recorded, underlying URLs or mobile device
locations. These logs are simply a record of the sites or applications or latitude/longitude the data
subject visited or even a record tied to advertisement itself instead of being tied to the individual’s
personal data (e.g., an ad was delivered to a site at a certain time of the day, an individual clicked
on it, etc.). These data points are an accurate reflection of data collected by digital marketing
companies.
Digital marketing companies may allow individuals to rectify their audience segments. However,
many digital marketing companies create audience segments based on algorithms and correcting
such segments could conflict with that algorithm. Additionally, digital marketing companies may
find data rectification to be extremely complex or nearly impossible, as doing so could require the
companies to obtain and correct information across various databases. Therefore, responding by
erasing the data might be a more direct solution for the data subject, as they will no longer be
‘wrongly’ associated with an audience segment.
Right of Erasure
Data subjects have the right to erasure – which requires the controller to delete from its records all
their personal data concerning the individual, without “undue delay” when one of the following
conditions apply:46
1. “the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were
collected or otherwise processed;”
The above condition means that digital marketing companies should review and create a general
policy as to whether they need to retain certain data for the purposes for which it was originally
collected or processed, such as billing, fraud prevention or other security reasons. If a company
determines not to erase certain data, it must maintain clearly demonstrable records of its decision
and continued processing needs, as data protection authorities will likely offer a very narrow
interpretation of when it is truly necessary to retain data.
2. “the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a)
of Article 6(1), or point (a) of Article 9(2), and where there is no other legal ground for the
processing;”
46
Article 17(1) GDPR.

This provisionapplies to those digital marketing companies that are controllersrelyingon consent47
as the legal basis for processing the data subject’s personal data and data subjects subsequently
withdraw their consent. The personal data is erased once data subjects withdraws their consent.48
Controllers should also review whether there is another legal ground for processing the data (e.g.,
legitimate interest such as retaining the data for billing, to prevent fraud).
3. “the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1) (right to object) and there
are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects to the
processing pursuant to Article 21(2);”
This provision applies to those digital marketing companies that are controllers relying on
legitimate interest as the legal basis for processing the data subject’s personal data.49
When the
data subject has objected to the processing, “on grounds relating to his or her particular situation,”50
and also asks for their data to be deleted, a controller relying on legitimate interest can deny this
request if it proves its interests outweigh the individual’s rights. Companies could argue that the
interest of preventing fraud, offering security services or maintaining data for financial records or
reconciliation, may outweigh individual rights. Again, companies should document their logic if
they determine that they need to retain certain data.
4. “the personal data have been unlawfully processed;”
This provision applies when the underlying legality of the processing is in question and therefore
deemed unlawful. Personal data is processed unlawfully if the legal basis for processing is invalid
or non-existent, but also if the processing does not comply with GDPR’s principles of data
processing.51
Should the legal basis for processing be unlawful, a digital marketing company would
have to delete the data at the data subject’s request.52
IAB Europe’s GIG interprets that companies may comply with this requirement by deleting or
hashing (withoutthe possibility of singling out a browser or device) the cookie ID(withoutthe ability
to decrypt the hashed information including throwing away the key), mobile ID or other identifier
used to connect the user level data to the ID. The ID must be either deleted or hashed on the digital
marketing company’s database. A company may also then either delete the cookie on the
individual’s browser or adjust the expiration date of the existing cookie on the individual’s device.
A company can also tell data subjects how they may delete their cookies via browser controls. In
the case of mobile apps, an individual should be advised to reset the mobile advertising id. Either
47
To be clear, some companies may rely on consent for dropping cookies on an individual’s browser. They
may then rely on Legitimate Interest to process the personal data they collect using that cookie. For an
excellent discussion on this topic, please see, “GDPR + e-Privacy = :-(“ by Phil Lee.
48
A revocation of consent is not the same as a request for deletion. Revocation is prospective, not retroactive.
It results in the data controller and data processor no longer processing the personal data. Deletion is not
necessary unless the data subject requests that the personal data be erased.
49
Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.
50
To be clear, Article (21)(1) of GDPR reflects that not every data subject objection triggers a company’s
obligation to start new legitimacy test- only objections which are based on concrete particular situation of
data subjects.
51
Article 5 (principles), Article 6 (legal bases) GDPR.
52
Two further grounds for erasure exist under Article 17 (1)(e),(f), GDPR, but are unlikely to be invoked against
online advertising technology companies.

way, the device ID becomes anonymized only when it is hashed on the server side (company side)
AND deleted on the data subject’s side.
Eliminating identifiers (and/or the ability to single out an individual) associated with the data, or by
resetting a mobile ID, a company will effectively break the link between the personal data and an
identifiable person, leading the digital marketing company to no longer have personal data – not
even pseudonymised data. Instead, the company will hold anonymous data which falls outside the
scope of GDPR. This interpretation relies entirely on the company’s ability to prove that there
is no way to tie the data collected to any person, including no way of treating that individual
differently (or a device which will be treated by data protection authorities as a proxy for the
individual).
Right to restriction of processing
The right to data restriction is a new data subject right. Data subjects may limit the purposes for
which a controller can process their data.53
This is an intermediary step short of deletion that
individuals can request when they object to certain ways their data is processed (e.g., legal claim).
Data subjects have the right of data restriction when one of the following conditions applies:54
1. The data subject contested the accuracy of the collected personal data and the controller
is in the process of verifying the accuracy of the personal data;
2. The processing is unlawful and the data subject opposes erasure of the data and requests
restriction instead;
3. The controller no longer needs the personal data for the purposes of the processing but the
data subject wants to maintain the data for the exercise or defence of legal claims; or
4. The data subject exercised the right to object pursuant to Article 21(1) and the controller is
in the process of verifying whether its legitimate interests override the interests of the
individual.
As a result of this right being introduced, data controllers should ensure that they have the
ability to “pause” or suspend the processing on any restricted data. For instance, a digital
marketing company may make selected data unavailable for further processing or flag the data on
the servers to automatically exclude it from processing. Organisations may consider moving
restricted data to another data system to prevent processing.
This requirement could also be fulfilled by offering data subjects an alternative opt-out. The digital
marketing company could drop an opt-out cookie on the user’s browser, or an equivalent mobile
device ID opt-out, so that the digital marketing company would no longer collect any data, even for
measurement or ad delivery or reporting purposes. This would flag the individual’s browser or
mobile device as restricted and would prohibit further data processing.
53
Article 18(1) GDPR.
54
Ibid.

In its response to a data subject right request, the digital marketing company should inform the
data subject that even though their data is restricted and will no longer be processed in an active
manner, it may still be stored. Internally, the organisation may also determine whether it has a
reason to push for the data to be processed, despite the request (for example, if the organisation
has proof of the data subject’s consent).
If a controller has contractually disclosed personal data to a third party, and the data subject’s data
has since been restricted, the controller must notify those third parties of all changes. The controller
shall also inform the data subject about those recipients if the data subject requests it. If the
controller can prove that this obligation is impossible or would require a disproportionate effort,
then there is an exemption under Article 19 for this obligation to notify the data subject and third
party partners.
Personal data may be unrestricted and processed again, when one of the following conditions
applies:55
1. if the individual has provided consent — he/she must be informed that the digital marketing
company is processing the personal data again;
2. for the exercise or defence of legal claims;
3. for the protection of rights of another individual or organization; or
4. for reasons of important public interest of the EU or EU country.
Right to data portability
The right to data portability is also a new data subject right that requires more than the other data
access rights.56
1. Data subjects have the right to receive the personal data that they have provided to a data
controller if:
a. the processing is based on consent,57
or on a contract,58
and
b. the processing is carried out by automated means.
2. The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him/her “in a
structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and have the right to transmit
those data to another controller.”59
3. This right allows the individual to have the controller transmit or port the data to another
controller.
Data portability rights are only triggered in a narrow set of circumstances.
First, as mentioned above, this right only applies if the individual provides the data to the controller.
Individuals do not always provide data to controllers in the digital marketing ecosystem. For
instances, digital marketing companies collect data from individuals as they visit digital properties,
55
Article 18(2) GDPR.
56
Article 20 GDPR.
57
Article 6(1)(a), Article 9(2) GDPR.
58
Article 6(1)(b) GDPR.
59
Article 20(1) GDPR.

such as websites and mobile applications. Data portability applies only to data that has been
provided to the controller by the individual in question, not data created by the company or
provided to the company by others. It does not concern, for example:
1. Data provided by others about this individual;
2. Data produced by the controller; and
3. Data derived or inferred by the controller.
Thus, the term “provided by” includes personal data that relate to the data subject’s activity
or result from the observation of an individual’s behaviour, but does not apply to any
subsequent analysis or inferences of that behaviour. The Article 29 Data Protection Working
Party agreed with this analysis, stating in its guidelines that data “provided by” the data subject
including its “history of website usage” but not the subsequent data created by the controller such
as a user profile.60
Any personal data that have been generated by the data controller as part of the
data processing (for example through a personalisation or recommendation process or user
categorisation or profiling) are data that are derived or inferred from personal data provided by
the data subject, and are not covered by the right to data portability.61
Second, data portability rights may be triggered if the legal basis for collecting the personal data is
based on consent,62
explicit consent,63
or for the performance of a contract.64
This right does not
apply when processing is based on different legal bases than individual’s consent or performance
of a contract. For instance, some companies may rely on consent for dropping a cookie on an
individual’s device, per Article 5(3) the ePrivacy Directive, but rely on Legitimate Interest for
processing of data collected via the cookie. Meaning, some companies may provide data subjects
with a copy of their cookie under the requirement to port an individual’s data because that is the
only data that is obtained under consent.
Finally, the right to data portability cannot adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others (e.g.,
when more than one individual is concerned).65
When digital marketing companies cannot verify
that an identifier belongs to the data subject, honouring a data portability request could result in
releasing data to the wrong recipient, and thereby adversely affect the rights and freedoms of the
true data subject. This could potentially also constitute a personal data breach though the harm is
minimized since digital marketing companies are likely collecting and storing pseudonymized data.
Therefore, companies should be cautious in responding to such data portability requests. Again, if
60
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party: ‘Guidelines on the right to Data Portability (WP242 rev.01)’, page
9-10.For a summary of this data subject right, see: ‘The Article 29 Working Party Issues Final Guidelines on the
right to data portability,’ https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2017/global/article-29-working-
party-issues-final-guidelines-on-the-right-to-data-portability by Ruth Boardman, Ariane Mole and Gabe
Maldoff.
61
Ibid.
62
Article 6(1)(a) GDPR.
63
Article 9(2) GDPR.
64
Article 6(1)(b) GDPR.
65
Article 20(4) GDPR.

a digital marketing company feels it cannot transmit personal data it has collected to another
company based on this issue, then it needs to document its reasoning.
Right to object
When data is processed on the grounds of a legitimate interest,66
data subjects have the right to
“object” to the processing of their personal data67
if the data is used for data marketing purposes or
profiling or is processed for research or statistical purposes.68
Meaning, the right to object under
Article 21(2) goes beyondnot only servingan advertisementto an individual butalso the prohibition
of further profiling for the purposes of direct marketing.
When processing relies on the legal basis of legitimate interest, digital marketing companies should
use their privacy notice to inform data subjects that they have a right to object at the point of data
collection or as soon as possible thereafter. This right should be a separate provision in the data
protection notice. Companies should ideally provide a means for requests to be made
electronically, preferably in an automated manner of objecting, i.e., an opt-out link. If digital
marketing companies are data processors, it should consider allowing data controllers the ability
to manage different opt-out lists per data processing purpose.
Organisations should consider the following points when drafting a policy around a data subject
right to object:
1. What happens when the data subject asks to “object?”
2. What data does an organisation collect after the right to object?
If a controller has contractually disclosed personal data to a third party, and the data subject has
objected to the processing of that data, then the controller must notify those third parties of all
changes. If the controller can prove that this obligation is impossible or would require a
disproportionate effort, then there is an exception for the controller under Article 19.
The obligation to notify relevant third parties
Where a data controller has disclosed personal data to third parties, and the data subject
subsequently exercises any of the rights of rectification, erasure or restriction, GDPR requires the
data controller to inform all such third parties that the data subject has exercised those rights,
unless doing so is “impossible or involves disproportionate effort.”69
Upon the data subject’s
request, the controller must also inform the data subject about the identities of any third parties to
whom his or her personal data have been disclosed. For organisations that routinely disclose
personal data to a large number of third parties, this may become particularly burdensome.
66
Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.
67
Article 21 GDPR.
68
The right to object allows a data subject to object to processing of data on the legal basis of legitimate
interest. The revocation of consent allows a data subject to object to processing on the legal basis of consent.
69
Article 19 GDPR.

Five steps to take now:
1. Determine whether you are a controller or processor;
2. Ensure you have appropriate procedures and policies in place to respond to the data
subject rights, including when do you have to respond to data subject rights (Consent
versus Legitimate Interest) and how will you respond;
3. Having a verification process in place to ensure the data subject has a right to the
personal data.
4. Make sure your employees in marketing, legal and privacy are properly trained to
respond to data subject requests; and
5. Update your data protection notices to reflect the data subject rights.

IAB Europe’s GDPR Implementation Working Group brings together
leading experts from across the digital advertising industry to
discuss the European Union’s new data protection law, share best
practices, and agree on common interpretations and industry
positioning on the most important issues for the digital advertising
sector.
The GDPR Implementation Working Group is a member-driven
forum for discussion and thought leadership, its important
contribution to the digital advertising industry’s GDPR compliance
efforts is only possible thanks to the work and leadership of its
many participating members.
For more information please contact:
Matthias Matthiesen (matthiesen@iabeurope.eu)
Director – Privacy & Public Policy
IAB Europe
Chris Hartsuiker (hartsuiker@iabeurope.eu)
Public Policy Officer
IAB Europe
About the IAB Europe GDPR
Implementation Working Group

IAB Europe GIG: Working Paper on Data Subject Requests

More Related Content

Similar to IAB Europe GIG: Working Paper on Data Subject Requests

More from IAB Europe

Recently uploaded

IAB Europe GIG: Working Paper on Data Subject Requests