There’s a meme that’s been doing the rounds for a while, and with Christmas approaching has become especially popular.
Firstly article 4 is made up of definitions (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/), so difficult to be in breach of, but let’s ignore that and run with the joke.
The first thing to do is to establish the lawful basis under which the processing is taking place. I’d argue that contract rather than legitimate interests
There is an argument that legitimate interests could apply as a legal basis, but the additional responsibility, right to portability, and other requirements make it less suitable in this instance.
Right to Object
Under the contract lawful basis data subjects do have the right to object () to the processing of their data, meaning the processing must cease unless the controller can demonstrate legitimate grounds for the processing weighed up against the interests of the data subject. Of course, objecting would raise questions about gifts later being received, meaning that if an objection is received processing would cease in any case. Now it is important that in any correspondence with the data subject, or their guardian, Claus Corp. notify them of their right to object and the mechanism to do so, but this is a relatively simple requirement.
Notification Obligation and Restriction of Processing
Claus Corp. does have a responsibility to communicate any rectification or erasure of personal
Automated decision-making and profiling
This is an area that could raise issues for Claus Corp. While the details of their decision-making process are obviously proprietary, it is safe to assume at least some level of automation is involved due to the sheer volume of data gathered (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/). However, in this instance not only are no legal effects produced, but the processing is necessary to enter into and perform the gift/
As such the best decision for Claus Corp. would be to provide a means for appeal to obtain human intervention (elf intervention is not counted as sufficient under the GDPR, and indeed elf processing of data in the first place may be considered automated decision making rather than manual, another instance where a test case would help to establish precedent).
So long as Claus Corp. makes some minimal changes to their working practices, and applies appropriate security for the data being processed (there is no indication or suggestion that they are not doing so), I see nothing to suggest they are in breach of any article of the General Data Protection Regulation.
Having said that I do have some concerns around the Tooth Fairy agency, who are clear processing sensitive medical data and provide no such clear channels for communication as Claus Corp., but that will wait for another article.