Bolt – Complaint Upheld (Estonia, 2024)

Complaint Upheld
Andmekaitse Inspektsioon14 February 2024Estonia
final
Complaint Upheld

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.

A data subject was a user of the Bolt app. They tried to change the phone number used, but the app didn’t provide for such a functionality. The data subject contacted the provider of the Bolt app (the controller) by sending emails asking for correction of their phone number in accordance with Article 16 GDPR. The controller didn’t reply. The data subject, represented by noby, lodged a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB), who forwarded the case to the Estonian DPA (AKI). During the proceedings, the controller stated that the user’s phone number served as a unique ID within the app’s system. Consequently, it was impossible to change the phone number used when first registering. The only available option was to delete the account and create a new one. In response, the DPA suggested to the controller it might update its system to allow for users changing their phone number in the app. Moreover, the DPA suggested the controller might answer the data subject’s request. As advised by the DPA, the controller updated the software and notified the DPA in August 2023. Also, the controller answered the requests of the data subject. The DPA upheld the complaint. The controller failed to reply to rectification request without undue delay, according to Article 12(3) GDPR. Eventually, the request was answerer but only after the DPA’s suggestion. However, as pointed out by the DPA, also during the proceedings the controller delayed to respond to the data subject. Furthermore, the controller didn’t implement appropriate organisational and technical measures under Article 32(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 24(1) GDPR to ensure the confidentiality of personal data. In particular, the controller didn’t envisage measures to prevent third-parties from unauthorised access to personal data of other users. That was possible when the owner of the phone number assigned to the account changed in the meantime since the new owner could then access the account created by the previous

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 16 GDPR
Art. 5(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 12(4) GDPR
Art. 24(1) GDPR
Art. 32(1) GDPR
Full Legal Summary

A data subject was a user of the Bolt app. They tried to change the phone number used, but the app didn’t provide for such a functionality. The data subject contacted the provider of the Bolt app (the controller) by sending emails asking for correction of their phone number in accordance with Article 16 GDPR. The controller didn’t reply. The data subject, represented by noby, lodged a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB), who forwarded the case to the Estonian DPA (AKI). During the proceedings, the controller stated that the user’s phone number served as a unique ID within the app’s system. Consequently, it was impossible to change the phone number used when first registering. The only available option was to delete the account and create a new one. In response, the DPA suggested to the controller it might update its system to allow for users changing their phone number in the app. Moreover, the DPA suggested the controller might answer the data subject’s request. As advised by the DPA, the controller updated the software and notified the DPA in August 2023. Also, the controller answered the requests of the data subject. The DPA upheld the complaint. The controller failed to reply to rectification request without undue delay, according to Article 12(3) GDPR. Eventually, the request was answerer but only after the DPA’s suggestion. However, as pointed out by the DPA, also during the proceedings the controller delayed to respond to the data subject. Furthermore, the controller didn’t implement appropriate organisational and technical measures under Article 32(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 24(1) GDPR to ensure the confidentiality of personal data. In particular, the controller didn’t envisage measures to prevent third-parties from unauthorised access to personal data of other users. That was possible when the owner of the phone number assigned to the account changed in the meantime since the new owner could then access the account created by the previous

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for Bolt in EE

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

14 February 2024

Authority

Andmekaitse Inspektsioon

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-8311

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Bolt - Estonia (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: