GDPR: The Right to be Forgotten

Alicja Kwiatkowski
October 3, 2018

The right of erasure vs. the legal requirement to store data

The protection and privacy of personal data has become a hot topic. Regulators across the globe implement laws which aim to provide greater protection of the privacy of personal data. One of the most significant pieces of legislation is GDPR which came into effect in Europe earlier this year. Modern personal data protection laws, including GDPR itself, are providing stronger enforcement rights, including punitive fines. But how far do an individual’s rights go? Whilst much has been written on GDPR, this article looks at an area that has received little attention – an individual’s right of erasure of his/her personal data versus an organisation’s legal requirement to retain that data.

The key point here is that the right of erasure under Article 17 of GDPR is in many cases not an absolute right for the individual. In fact, quite the opposite. Depending on the legal basis under which the data is processed, the handler of the data may reject such requests as it may be legally required to retain that data for regulatory purposes. There is only a handful of cases in which a data handler needs to abide by a request for deletion of data, such as for marketing when the consent of the individual is the legal basis for processing data.

For businesses, the legal basis for processing data is often either in the legitimate interest of the company handling the data or a legal obligation to process the data, stemming from tax laws or employment and insurance laws. In the second case, legal obligations laid down in the EU or its member states’ laws give the company an absolute right to reject a request for deletion of data. Imagine a situation where the French accounting law requires the taxable person to store invoices for 10 years. In this scenario, when the invoice contains an individual’s personal data, they have no legal right to ask for their personal data to be deleted. Consequently, any personal data deletion requests received by the company storing the invoice can legally be rejected.

The situation is not as straightforward in cases where it is a non-EU law that includes an obligation to store the data. For a US invoice, the obligation to store it will fall under the legal basis of legitimate interest, which is tougher to prove objectively. In such a scenario, the company holding the invoice data under US law needs to perform an assessment balancing the individual’s interest in having his/her data deleted against the company’s compelling legitimate grounds for processing the data. This is one of many reasons why companies appoint a Data Protection Officer who can help them make balanced decisions.

Whilst an individual’s rights are strong when it comes to the privacy and protection of their personal data, they are far from absolute. Personal data should be treated with respect in line with principles set out by law, but it is equally important to bear in mind that an individual’s request for their personal data may be rejected if the company processing that data has a legitimate reason for doing so.

Take Action

Sovos Trustweaver provides eArchiving solutions for clients in over 50 countries. To find out more visit https://www.trustweaver.com/solutions/e-archive/

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.

Author

Alicja Kwiatkowski

Alicja Kwiatkowski is a Legal Counsel at Sovos TrustWeaver. Based in Stockholm, Alicja’s background is in law and IT with a professional focus on international e-invoicing compliance, personal data protection and cyber security. Alicja earned her degree in Law from University of Warsaw, Poland and LL.M in European IP Law from Stockholm University, Sweden.
Share This Post

ShipCompliant United States
February 27, 2020
An Analyst’s Insights into 2020 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping Report

Sovos ShipCompliant and Wines Vines Analytics recently released the 2020 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping Report and we asked Tom Wark of Wark Communications, a company specializing in beverage industry communications, to give us some of his insights and takeaways from this year’s report. Tom has been involved in the creation of the DtC report for many […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
February 27, 2020
Greece Publishes Accreditation Scheme for E-invoicing Service Providers

Certification of e-invoice service providers is an important first step and milestone ahead of the implementation of e-invoicing in Greece.  The Greek Government has now defined the regulatory framework for e-invoice service providers, their obligations, and a set of requirements needed to certify their invoicing software.   Key details and parameters Scope E-invoice service providers […]

Sales & Use Tax United States
February 26, 2020
It’s Time for Tax to Step Up and Be Heard

In a recent piece published by Deloitte, Upgrading to SAP S/4 HANA: The evolving role of the tax function in large multinationals, the case is made that the move to S/4 HANA is the right time and technology for tax to embrace digital transformation. We would agree. With SAP extending the support deadline of its […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA Italy VAT & Fiscal Reporting
February 26, 2020
Italy’s e-invoicing reform: A new FatturaPA

Italy has been a pioneer when it comes to automating e-invoicing processes. It first introduced a B2G e-invoicing system in 2014 which has since evolved into a robust and mandatory platform for the exchange of invoices now also expanded to include B2B and B2C transactions. The Italian central e-invoicing platform SDI was considered revolutionary by […]

Asia Pacific Brazil Colombia EMEA Italy LATAM Mexico Spain Tax Compliance Tax Information Reporting United States
February 25, 2020
Prepare to Pay Taxes on Crypto Held in Foreign Accounts

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a U.S. Congress watchdog, published a report evaluating the IRS’s approach to regulating virtual currency (crypto) and the guidance it has offered the public. The GAO’s Recommendation However, a portion of the report was directed at the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. […]