The Retention Conflict

The two rules are not symmetric. The retention requirement is a legal obligation that typically provides a lawful basis for continuing to process the data, and erasure rights commonly yield to legal obligations. But that does not mean the whole recording must be kept in identifiable form. The correct analysis is necessity and minimisation: identify the specific legal basis for retention, confirm the retention period applies to this record type, and then ask whether the health details are needed for that purpose. If the regulatory purpose is to evidence the sale, the health information is likely surplus. The defensible path is to retain the record in a form that satisfies the obligation while redacting or segregating the special-category health data, and to document the legal basis for refusing erasure. Legal must confirm the jurisdiction-specific interaction before any response goes to the customer.

The vendor is a processor handling special-category data and storing copies in a foreign region, which triggers cross-border transfer rules and processor obligations. I would inventory what the vendor stores, where, and for how long; confirm a written processing agreement with confidentiality, security, sub-processor, and deletion terms; and verify the transfer mechanism is valid for that region. Because the vendor holds copies, an erasure or redaction instruction must propagate to the vendor, and the contract must require the vendor to act within a defined period and confirm deletion. I would also check whether the vendor's retention exceeds the broker's, since a vendor copy that outlives the lawful basis becomes an unlawful processing activity. If the transfer mechanism is invalid, the transcription flow must be suspended or re-routed.

To the customer: acknowledge the request within the statutory window, explain that a legal retention obligation applies to the sales record, and state what will be done to minimise the personal data held, without disclosing internal legal reasoning. To the sales director: explain that deleting a record subject to a retention obligation creates spoliation and regulatory exposure, and that the complaint risk is managed through the documented legal basis, not through destruction. To the compliance officer: confirm the retention basis in writing and record the redaction decision. The key judgement is that the answer is neither "delete" nor "keep everything" but "retain the minimum necessary under a documented legal basis," with the vendor brought into scope.