SCENARIO

Please use the following to answer the next question:

Louis, a long-time customer of Bedrock Insurance, was involved in a minor car accident a few months ago. Although no one was hurt, Louis has been plagued by texts and calls from a company called Accidentable offering to help him recover compensation for personal injury. Louis has heard about insurance companies selling customers' data to third parties, and he's convinced that Accidentable must have gotten his information from Bedrock Insurance.

Louis has also been receiving an increased amount of marketing information from Bedrock, trying to sell him their full range of their insurance policies.

Perturbed by this, Louis has started looking at price comparison sites on the internet and has been shocked to find that other insurers offer much cheaper rates than Bedrock, even though he has been a loyal customer for many years. When his Bedrock policy comes up for renewal, he decides to switch to Zantrum Insurance.

In order to activate his new insurance policy, Louis needs to supply Zantrum with information about his No Claims bonus, his vehicle and his driving history. After researching his rights under the GDPR, he writes to ask Bedrock to transfer his information directly to Zantrum. He also takes this opportunity to ask Bedrock to stop using his personal data for marketing purposes.

Bedrock supplies Louis with a PDF and XML (Extensible Markup Language) versions of his No Claims Certificate, but tells Louis it cannot transfer his data directly to Zantrum as this is not technically feasible. Bedrock also explains that Louis's contract included a provision whereby Louis agreed that his data could be used for marketing purposes; according to Bedrock, it is too late for Louis to change his mind about this. It angers Louis when he recalls the wording of the contract, which was filled with legal jargon and very confusing.

In the meantime, Louis is still receiving unwanted calls from Accidentable Insurance. He writes to Accidentable to ask for the name of the organization that supplied his details to them. He warns Accidentable that he plans to complain to the data protection authority, because he thinks their company has been using his data unlawfully. His letter states that he does not want his data being used by them in any way.

Accidentable's response letter confirms Louis's suspicions. Accidentable is Bedrock Insurance's wholly owned subsidiary, and they received information about Louis's accident from Bedrock shortly after Louis submitted his accident claim. Accidentable assures Louis that there has been no breach of the GDPR, as Louis's contract included, a provision in which he agreed to share his information with Bedrock's affiliates for business purposes.

Louis is disgusted by the way in which he has been treated by Bedrock, and writes to them insisting that all his information be erased from their computer system.

After Louis has exercised his right to restrict the use of his data, under what conditions would Accidentable have grounds for refusing to comply?

In the Planet 49 case, what was the man judgement of the Coon of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the issue of cookies?

What is a reason the European Court of Justice declared the Data Retention Directive invalid in 2014?

What was the aim of the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC?

Please use the following to answer the next question:

Jack worked as a Pharmacovigiliance Operations Specialist in the Irish office of a multinational pharmaceutical company on a clinical trial related to COVID-19. As part of his onboarding process Jack received privacy training He was explicitly informed that while he would need to process confidential patient data in the course of his work, he may under no circumstances use this data for anything other than the performance of work-related (asks This was also specified in the privacy policy, which Jack signed upon conclusion of the training.

After several months of employment, Jack got into an argument with a patient over the phone. Out of anger he later posted the patient's name and hearth information, along with disparaging comments, on a social media website. When this was discovered by his Pharmacovigilance supervisors. Jack was immediately dismissed

Jack's lawyer sent a letter to the company stating that dismissal was a disproportionate sanction, and that if Jack was not reinstated within 14 days his firm would have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings against the company. This letter was accompanied by a data access request from Jack requesting a copy of 'all personal data, including internal emails that were sent/received by Jack or where Jack is directly or indirectly identifiable from the contents * In relation to the emails Jack listed six members of the management team whose inboxes he required access.

The company conducted an initial search of its IT systems, which returned a large amount of information They then contacted Jack, requesting that he be more specific regarding what information he required, so that they could carry out a targeted search Jack responded by stating that he would not narrow the scope of the information requester.

What would be the most appropriate response to Jacks data subject access request?