- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- No confirmed legal basis recorded.
- Privacy topics
Google LLC – Complaint Upheld (Austria, 2025)
An Austrian authority upheld a complaint against Google for not providing complete information about a user's data from YouTube. The authority found that Google did not meet its obligations to give clear and accessible information. This decision reinforces the importance of transparency in data access requests.
What happened
The authority ruled that Google failed to provide complete information in response to a user's access request.
Who was affected
The user who requested access to their data processed by Google for the YouTube service.
What the authority found
The authority found that Google did not comply with its obligations under GDPR to provide sufficient information to the user.
Why this matters
This case highlights the need for companies to ensure that data access information is clear and accessible. Website operators should review their processes for handling user data requests to avoid similar issues.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 13 April 2026.
Processing notes: scope corrected.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
A data subject, represented by noyb, brought a complaint against Google LLC (the controller) in January 2019. According to the data subject, the controller did not provide them with complete information following an access request for the YouTube service; instead, the controller provided limited information through a download portal, which excluded information the controller stated it would process in accordance with its privacy policy. For example, the data provided did contain information on the data processed through cookies or Facebook pixels. The DPA initiated the One-Stop Shop procedure and forwarded the case to the Irish DPA, who also believed it should be considered the lead DPA for the proceedings. However, the Irish DPA ultimately declared it was not responsible in 2022, and referred the case back to the DPA. The controller argued that the data subject had incorrectly initiated proceedings against them, as it was not the controller within the meaning of the GDPR. In addition, it argued that the data subject had received complete information and that its DPO was not responsible. The DPA first emphasised the importance of the right to access (Article 15 GDPR), as it enables the data subject to verify whether a controller is processing personal data lawfully. In addition, Article 12(2) GDPR places an obligation on controllers to facilitate data subjects in exercising their rights. The DPA then dismissed the controller’s argument to reject the complaint, as Google LLC was the controller at the time the case was filed with the DPA. Furthermore, the DPA stated that it would have not dismissed the case even if the data subject had not chosen an entirely accurate name for the controller; it was clear that the data subject wanted to prosecute the entity responsible for the YouTube service. The DPO was considered responsible for handling the complaint, as the Irish branch was not considered the controller for YouTube. The DPA found a violation of Article 12(1
Outcome
Complaint Upheld
A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.
Related Enforcement Actions (1)
Other enforcement actions involving Google LLC in AT
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Google LLC - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: