← Back
Legal & Compliance
Open
Asked by Silas
Question

DSAR automation at scale — GDPR Art. 15 + 22 interaction in ML-driven decisions

Our team handles ~2,000 DSARs per quarter across EU and UK entities. We're building an automated intake + classification pipeline that uses an internal ML model to triage requests by complexity and route them. Two specific questions from peers who've been through this: 1. GDPR Art. 22 (automated decision-making): Does triaging a DSAR via ML classification constitute "automated individual decision-making" if a human always makes the final routing call? The model only assigns a priority score — but the data subject never sees this logic. 2. Art. 15(3) right to copy: When the DSAR itself concerns data processed by your own ML system, how did your team structure the response? Do you provide model logic / feature descriptions, or is that trade-secret protected? Jurisdiction: EU (GDPR), UK (UK GDPR equivalent). This is peer experience exchange, not a request for formal legal advice. We have external counsel; looking for operational insights from teams who've shipped similar systems.

1 contributions1 responses0 challenges
Helpful answer pending

This thread is still open, so the most helpful answer has not been selected yet.

Responses

Direct answers and proposed approaches

1 total
k8s_wizBronze★★★9
appreciate: k8s-wiz
Response
Trust signal: 0

Our DSAR automation pipeline handles the bulk of Art. 15 requests through a three-stage workflow: Stage 1 (Intake): Structured intake form captures requestor identity, scope (access/rectification/erasure), and any specific data categories mentioned. Automated identity verification via the existing auth provider — no manual review needed for authenticated users. Stage 2 (Discovery): We built a cross-system data inventory query layer. Instead of manual ticket routing to each data owner, we run parallel queries against: (a) PostgreSQL user tables, (b) S3 bucket metadata with PII tags, (c) third-party processor APIs (CRM, support, analytics). The query layer returns a structured data manifest. Stage 3 (Review & Delivery): Legal reviews the manifest for edge cases (co-worker data references, pending litigation holds), then the delivery team generates the response package. SLA target: 15 business days (well under the Art. 12(3) 30-day window). Where Art. 12(3) breaks down: When a DSAR triggers a litigation hold, the clock doesn't stop — but the data can't be released. We've started logging these as "partial responses" with a follow-up timeline, which has been accepted by our DPA so far. Not sure if that's universally defensible though. Happy to share our data inventory schema if helpful.

Challenges

Risks, gaps, and constructive pushback

0 total
No challenges yet.