Skip to main content
Praxikon
Agent check

Article 12: Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subjectAI-relevant

Praxikon tracks Article 12 (Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject) under the GDPR, alongside the EU AI Act, citing the source for every statement.

Chapter IIIIn force since 25-05-2018

What does Article 12 govern?

Article 12 sets out how you communicate with data subjects about their data and their rights. The information under Articles 13 and 14 and any communication about the rights under Articles 15 to 22 and Article 34 must be concise, intelligible, easily accessible and written in clear and plain language, with particular care for information addressed to children (paragraph 1). The article also lays down the ground rules for handling requests: you facilitate the exercise of rights (paragraph 2), you respond within one month (paragraph 3), you explain why you do not act on a request (paragraph 4) and you do all this free of charge as a rule (paragraph 5). It exists because rights are only worth something when people understand them and can use them easily; recital 58 points to situations such as online advertising where it is hard for people to know who is using their data and for what, and recital 59 asks for practical arrangements so that requests can be made simply, preferably also electronically.

Key term: Transparency: information and replies to the data subject are concise, intelligible and in plain language, so that the data subject can actually use their rights

Directly affects:controllerdata subjectCommission

Praxikon’s reading of the text and the recitals; the official text below prevails.

Official text

/
The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in Articles 13 and 14 and any communication under Articles 15 to 22 and 34 relating to processing to the data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. The information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means.
The controller shall facilitate the exercise of data subject rights under Articles 15 to 22. In the cases referred to in Article 11(2), the controller shall not refuse to act on the request of the data subject for exercising his or her rights under Articles 15 to 22, unless the controller demonstrates that it is not in a position to identify the data subject.
The controller shall provide information on action taken on a request under Articles 15 to 22 to the data subject without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request. That period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. The controller shall inform the data subject of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay. Where the data subject makes the request by electronic form means, the information shall be provided by electronic means where possible, unless otherwise requested by the data subject.
If the controller does not take action on the request of the data subject, the controller shall inform the data subject without delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request of the reasons for not taking action and on the possibility of lodging a complaint with a supervisory authority and seeking a judicial remedy.
Information provided under Articles 13 and 14 and any communication and any actions taken under Articles 15 to 22 and 34 shall be provided free of charge. Where requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of their repetitive character, the controller may either: (a) charge a reasonable fee taking into account the administrative costs of providing the information or communication or taking the action requested; or (b) refuse to act on the request. The controller shall bear the burden of demonstrating the manifestly unfounded or excessive character of the request.
Without prejudice to Article 11, where the controller has reasonable doubts concerning the identity of the natural person making the request referred to in Articles 15 to 21, the controller may request the provision of additional information necessary to confirm the identity of the data subject.
The information to be provided to data subjects pursuant to Articles 13 and 14 may be provided in combination with standardised icons in order to give in an easily visible, intelligible and clearly legible manner a meaningful overview of the intended processing. Where the icons are presented electronically they shall be machine-readable.
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 92 for the purpose of determining the information to be presented by the icons and the procedures for providing standardised icons. Section 2 Information and access to personal data

Source: EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Official text, reproduced without modification.

What does this mean for you?

Controller

You write privacy information and replies to requests so that a layperson understands them, and even more simply when the information is addressed to children (paragraph 1). You set up a procedure to receive requests under Articles 15 to 22, handle them within one month or extend by at most two further months while stating the reasons (paragraph 3), and when you refuse you give the reasons and point to the complaint with the supervisory authority and the judicial remedy (paragraph 4). If you charge a fee or refuse because a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, you must be able to demonstrate that yourself (paragraph 5).

Data Subject

You can expect information and replies in clear language and, as a rule, free of charge (paragraphs 1 and 5). When you make a request, you hear within one month what has been done with it, or that the period is being extended by at most two further months (paragraph 3). The controller may ask you for additional information if it has reasonable doubts about your identity (paragraph 6).

Compliance checklist

Related recitals

(58)

The principle of transparency requires that any information addressed to the public or to the data subject be concise, easily accessible and easy to understand, and that clear and plain language and, ...

(59)

Modalities should be provided for facilitating the exercise of the data subject's rights under this Regulation, including mechanisms to request and, if applicable, obtain, free of charge, in particula...

Cross-references

Art. 11: Processing which does not require identificationArt. 92: Exercise of the delegation

More case law, guidelines and fines

In addition to the overview at the bottom of this page: rulings, guidelines and fines that interpret or apply this article, newest first. Each item was checked against the official source.

Case law (4)

  • 11 July 2024 · C-757/22 · CJEU
    Meta Platforms Ireland (duty to inform)

    A consumer association can bring a representative action for breach of the duty to inform about the purposes and recipients of processing.

  • 26 October 2023 · C-307/22 · CJEU
    FT v DW (medical records)

    The first copy of one's own data is free, even if the patient wants it for a claim against the doctor. In a doctor-patient relationship the right to a copy can extend to the full medical record where needed.

  • 4 May 2023 · C-487/21 · CJEU
    F.F. v Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde (CRIF)

    The right to a copy means a faithful and intelligible reproduction of all the data, including extracts or entire documents where needed to exercise one's rights.

  • 12 January 2023 · C-154/21 · CJEU
    Österreichische Post (recipients)

    The right of access covers the actual identity of the recipients, not just categories, unless identification is impossible or the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive.

Guidelines and decisions (4)

Fines (8)

  • 26 November 2024 · Dutch Data Protection Authority€4,750,000
    Netflix: unclear information to customers

    Between 2018 and 2020 Netflix's privacy statement and its replies to access requests did not clearly explain the purposes and legal bases of its processing, who data were shared with, how long data were kept, and how transfers outside Europe were safeguarded.

    Decision of 26 November 2024, announced on 18 December 2024. Netflix objected to the fine.

  • 16 May 2024 · Dutch Data Protection Authority€30,500,000
    Clearview AI: illegal database of face prints

    Clearview scraped billions of photos from the internet and turned faces into biometric codes, without a legal basis and in breach of the ban on processing biometric data. It did not inform people, ignored access requests and had no representative in the EU.

    Decision of 16 May 2024, announced on 3 September 2024. Clearview did not object, so the fine is final. The AP imposed no separate fine for the missing EU representative (Article 27).

  • 1 September 2023 · Data Protection Commission (Ireland)€345,000,000
    TikTok: children's accounts public by default

    Children's accounts were public by default and the Family Pairing feature was poorly safeguarded, while children were not properly informed. At the EDPB's direction, deceptive design choices were also found to breach the fairness principle.

    Decision of 1 September 2023, announced on 15 September 2023. TikTok challenged the decision before the EU General Court (case T-1030/23) and the Irish High Court.

  • 31 December 2022 · Data Protection Commission (Ireland)€390,000,000
    Meta: contract as legal basis for behavioural advertising

    Meta relied on its terms of service as the legal basis for behavioural advertising on Facebook and Instagram, which the binding EDPB decision held was not a valid basis. Users were also not clearly told which legal basis applied to which processing.

    Two decisions of 31 December 2022 (EUR 210 million for Facebook, EUR 180 million for Instagram), announced on 4 January 2023. Meta announced it would appeal both the substance and the fines.

  • 2 September 2022 · Data Protection Commission (Ireland)€405,000,000
    Instagram: children's data public by default

    Children aged 13 to 17 could run business accounts that published their email address or phone number, and children's personal accounts were public by default. At the EDPB's direction, an infringement of the legal basis for processing was also found.

    Decision of 2 September 2022, announced on 15 September 2022. Meta appealed to the Irish High Court.

Show 3 more
  • 20 August 2021 · Data Protection Commission (Ireland)€225,000,000
    WhatsApp: insufficient transparency

    WhatsApp did not properly inform users and non-users about the processing of their data, including the sharing of data with other Facebook companies. Following a binding EDPB decision the DPC had to increase its proposed fine.

    The DPC lists 20 August 2021 as the decision date; announced on 2 September 2021. WhatsApp challenged the decision in the Irish courts and before the EU General Court.

  • 15 July 2021 · CNPD (Luxembourg)€746,000,000
    Amazon: targeted advertising without a valid legal basis

    Amazon processed personal data for interest-based advertising on the basis of legitimate interest, which was not a valid legal basis. It also fell short on informing users and on honouring rights such as access, rectification and erasure.

    The administrative tribunal upheld the fine on 18 March 2025. On appeal, the Administrative Court annulled the decision on 12 March 2026 and sent the case back to the CNPD, because the CNPD had not assessed whether Amazon acted intentionally or negligently and had not weighed which corrective measure was most appropriate. The core findings of infringement were confirmed; the Article 21 complaints were held to fall outside the scope of the inquiry.

  • 21 January 2019 · CNIL (France)€50,000,000
    Google: transparency and consent on Android

    When creating a Google account on an Android phone, information about the processing was scattered and unclear. Consent to personalised advertising was not sufficiently informed, specific or unambiguous.

    The Conseil d'État dismissed Google's appeal on 19 June 2020; the fine is final.

Line of case lawThe right of access

What must you provide on an access request, and when may you refuse?

  1. Rijkeboer (2009)Access also covers past recipients.
  2. YS and Others (2014)A full summary is enough; no right to copies of documents.
  3. Nowak (2017)Exam scripts are personal data and so in principle accessible.
  4. Österreichische Post (recipients) (2023)You are entitled to the actual recipients, not just categories.
  5. F.F. v Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde (CRIF) (2023)A copy is a faithful reproduction, including whole documents where needed.
  6. Pankki S (2023)Log data fall under access, employee names in principle do not.
  7. FT v DW (medical records) (2023)The first copy is free, even for a claim.
  8. Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights - Right of access (2023)The EDPB brings the access rules together in guidelines.
  9. Dun & Bradstreet Austria (2025)For automated decisions, an intelligible explanation of the logic follows.
  10. Brillen Rottler (2026)An abusive first request may be refused as excessive.

Checked on 5 November 2026

Frequently asked questions

← Art. 11: Processing which does not require identificationArt. 13: Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject →

Connections

What connects to Article 12 GDPR

Themes where this returns

The counterpart in the other law

Case law

Guidelines

Enforcement and fines

Legislation in motion