Source: https://www.eu-rep.global/blog/article/guidelines-on-data-processing-in-contractual-relationships0/
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 04:35:44
Document Index: 644344079

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6']

Customer Data: GDPR Compliance in Contractual Relationships | EU-Rep.globalArticle | EU-Rep.global
Every processing of personal data requires a legal basis such as consent, legitimate interests or legal obligations. In October 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”), an advisory body that consists of the data protection supervisory authorities in the EU, issued guidelines for public consultation on data processing based on Art. 6(1)(b) of the GDPR in the context of online services. They clearly indicate that the EDPB will impose stringent requirements for relying on data processing required for the performance of a contract.
Art. 6(1)(b) allows data processing to the extent necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract. Typical scenarios include processing of inquiries by prospective customers, transfer of postal addresses to parcel services for product delivery, or storage of the employees’ bank details for the purpose of processing salary payments.
Limitations of contract design regarding data processing
The EDPB emphasizes that the concept of “necessity” stems from a perspective of data protection as a fundamental right, leading to the conclusion that it would not cover processing which is useful but not objectively necessary for performing the contractual service, even if it is necessary for the controller’s other business purposes. In order to assess whether a certain processing is “objectively necessary”, “the exact rationale of the contract, i.e. its substance and fundamental objective” must be determined. Controllers may not “artificially” extent the scope of Art. 6(1)(b) by imposing additional conditions about advertising, payments or cookies, amongst other things.
For example, an online roadmap provider may process the customer’s location data for the purpose of a navigation function that the customer wants to use. On the contrary, using this data to create a motion profile of the customer in order to provide him or her with ads on restaurants located between the home address and the workplace is not covered by Art. 6(1)(b), even in case that such processing is included as a contractual condition within the terms and conditions of the service.
This differentiation endorsed by the EDPB leaves room for interpretation. However, it seems clear that authorities accept Art. 6(1)(b) as a legal basis only with regard to processing operations directly relating to the services the customer signs up to. In other words: The EDPB objects to the idea of ‘paying’ for a service by sharing personal information, as it explicitly states that “personal data cannot be considered as a tradeable commodity”.
Service improvement, online behavioural advertising, personalisation of content
The EDPB provides several examples on what kind of processing purposes may or may not be covered by Art. 6(1)(b). With regard to the purpose of “service improvement”, it states that “collection of organisational metrics relating to a service, or details of user engagement” cannot be justified as being necessary for the performance of a contract. However, other legal basis such as legitimate interest or consent may apply.
“Online behavioural advertising, and associated tracking and profiling of data subjects” may, according to the EDPB, also not be justified under Art. 6(1)(b), even if such advertising indirectly funds the provision of the service. In this context, the EDPB reiterates its position that placement of cookies necessary to engage in behavioural advertising requires the data subject’s prior consent.
Processing for the purpose of personalisation of content may constitute an essential or expected element of certain online services and, therefore, may be justified under Art. 6(1)(b). Whether that is the case or not “will depend on the nature of the service provided, the expectations of the average data subject in light not only of the terms of service but also the way the service is promoted to users, and whether the service can be provided without personalisation”. Hence, where personalisation is a core feature of the service, it may be necessary for performance of the contract.