UAB Whitebridge.ai – Complaint Upheld (Lithuania, 2026)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
UAB Whitebridge.ai was found to have failed in responding to a user's request for access to their data. The company argued it missed the request due to a high volume of emails. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely responses to data access requests and the need for clear communication channels.
What happened
A user requested access to their data from UAB Whitebridge.ai, but the company did not respond in time.
Who was affected
The user who filed a complaint after not receiving a timely response to their data access request.
What the authority found
The authority upheld that UAB Whitebridge.ai violated GDPR by not responding to the user's access request within the required timeframe.
Why this matters
This decision stresses the importance of timely communication and response to data access requests. Businesses should ensure they have effective systems in place to handle such requests promptly.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
UAB Whitebridge.ai (the controller) is a company that provides AI powered reports of the “online presence” and monitoring of data subjects. In 2025, a data subject filed a complaint with the DPA on the grounds that the controller did not provide them with access under Article 15 GDPR. The controller argued that the data subject sent their access request to its general email address, and that the request had not been noticed due to the high volume of emails received for that address. Therefore, the controller was not able to process the request within the time frame under Article 12(3) GDPR. In addition, the controller stated it had introduced additional measures to respond to access requests in the future (including updating their privacy policy with the email address of their Data Protection Officer). Finally, the controller stated it would respond to the data subject’s access request. The DPA found a violation of Articles 12(3) and 15(1) GDPR, as the controller failed to respond to the data subject’s access request. The DPA ordered the controller to provide the data subject with access to their data, in accordance with Article 15(1) GDPR.
Outcome
Complaint Upheld
A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for UAB Whitebridge.ai in LT
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. UAB Whitebridge.ai - Lithuania (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: