- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Lithuania · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
UAB Whitebridge.ai – Complaint Upheld (Lithuania, 2026)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. 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.
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 — 30 May 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
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: