E-commerce access, deletion, pricing algorithm and a deceased account
Chen uses HuiBuy, an e-commerce app. He requests a copy of all his personal information, deletion of two years of browsing and search history, and an explanation of why the app's automated pricing tool charged him 12% more than a friend for the same headphones. HuiBuy replies 40 days later: it provides order records but refuses browsing-history deletion because the data is 'useful for model training'; it refuses the pricing explanation as a 'trade secret'; and it offers a generic opt-out from personalized recommendations buried in settings. Chen also asks to access and delete his late father's account data; HuiBuy says only the account holder can make requests. The father had not left instructions. HuiBuy asks Chen for his ID and his father's death certificate.
1. Chen asks for a copy of all his data and deletion of his browsing and search history. How should HuiBuy handle each request, and what are the limits?
Read the worked answer
Article 45 gives Chen the right to access and copy his PI. HuiBuy should provide the categories, recipients and a copy of the data; portability to a designated processor applies where the conditions are met. Providing order records only is incomplete if browsing and search history is also his PI. Article 50 requires a convenient mechanism and a justified refusal; a 40-day response to a straightforward access request is hard to justify as timely. The company may verify identity, but should not use verification to delay. On deletion, PIPL does not give an unconditional 'delete on demand' right. Article 47 lists the triggers: purpose achieved or retention period expired, service ended, consent withdrawn, illegal processing, and similar. Chen can withdraw consent for model-training use; once he does, processing based on that consent should stop and the data should be deleted if no other basis applies. If deletion is technically difficult, the processor must stop processing and store the data securely. Order and transaction records may need to be retained for tax, accounting or consumer-dispute purposes, so HuiBuy can refuse deletion of those records within the statutory retention period, but must explain and limit use.
2. HuiBuy refuses the pricing explanation as a trade secret and offers only a buried opt-out. Assess this under PIPL's automated decision-making rules.
Read the worked answer
Article 24 requires transparency and fairness in automated decision-making. If the pricing tool produces differential prices and significantly impacts Chen's rights, he can request an explanation and refuse a decision made solely by automated means. Trade-secret protection does not justify a blanket refusal; the company can explain the logic and main factors without disclosing source code. The buried opt-out from personalized recommendations does not satisfy the requirement of a convenient refusal, especially for commercial marketing. If the 12% difference is based on unreasonable factors, it may also be prohibited differential treatment. HuiBuy should give a meaningful explanation and a real opt-out, and should be able to show that the pricing factors are lawful and not unfairly discriminatory.
3. Can Chen exercise rights over his late father's account? Explain the conditions and HuiBuy's proper response.
Read the worked answer
Article 49 allows a close relative to exercise access, correction and deletion rights for the deceased for the relative's own lawful and legitimate interests, unless the deceased arranged otherwise. Chen is the son and the father left no instructions, so HuiBuy cannot rely on 'only the account holder' as an absolute rule. It can require reasonable proof of death and kinship, which Chen has offered. It should assess his legitimate interest, avoid disclosing third-party data, and limit the response to the father's account. If the request conflicts with the father's explicit lifetime arrangement, it can refuse with reasons. A blanket refusal without considering Article 49 would be inconsistent with PIPL.