Identity verification for DSRs using proportional approaches

Clear, consistent identity checks for data subject requests reduce fraud risks while avoiding excessive friction, delays or unlawful data handling.

Organizations that receive data subject requests (DSRs) under privacy laws often struggle to confirm who is really behind the request. If identity verification is too weak, there is a risk of disclosing personal data to impostors or processing fraudulent deletions and corrections.

On the other hand, overly rigid identity checks can make it practically impossible for individuals to exercise their rights, generating complaints, regulatory risk and customer frustration. A risk-based approach seeks a middle path, adjusting verification strength to the sensitivity of the data and the type of request.

Key points for risk-based identity verification

• Identity verification for DSRs means confirming that the requester is the individual or authorized representative tied to the personal data.
• Problems usually arise when requests involve sensitive data, large volumes of records or high-risk actions such as deletion or disclosure.
• The main legal area involved is data protection and privacy compliance, often under frameworks like GDPR or state privacy laws.
• Ignoring verification can lead to wrongful disclosure, denied rights, complaints and enforcement action.
• The usual path combines internal checks, layered evidence and clear procedures for escalation when risk increases.

Understanding risk-based verification for DSRs in practice

A risk-based model does not apply the same identity checks to every DSR. Instead, it evaluates the context of the request, the sensitivity of the data and the potential impact of getting the decision wrong.

From there, organizations can choose lighter or stronger verification steps, documenting why a given level of evidence is appropriate. This also helps demonstrate accountability to regulators and auditors.

• Nature of the request (access, deletion, correction, restriction).
• Type and sensitivity of the personal data involved.
• Existing relationship and authentication level with the requester.
• Channel used for the request (portal, email, phone, in person).
• Indicators of fraud, impersonation or unusual activity.

Legal and practical aspects of identity verification

Privacy laws generally require organizations to verify requesters before sharing or deleting personal data, while also limiting unnecessary data collection. This creates a tension between security, proportionality and the obligation to respond within specific deadlines.

In practice, organizations should define a written procedure that maps verification levels to request types, ensures responses within legal timeframes and includes fallbacks when the available evidence is inconclusive.

• Define what evidence is acceptable for low, medium and high-risk requests.
• Set internal deadlines for verification steps to avoid breaching response time limits.
• Specify when additional documentation may be requested and when it is excessive.
• Ensure that staff do not improvise new, unapproved verification demands.

Different approaches and possible paths in DSR verification

Risk-based methods can range from simple checks using existing login credentials to more robust steps such as government ID review or notarized authorizations. The key is to use the least intrusive method that still adequately mitigates risk.

When verification fails or remains unclear, organizations should have clear alternatives, such as partial responses, redaction, or formal denial with explanation and complaint options.

• Rely on authenticated accounts and multi-factor authentication where available.
• Use knowledge-based checks or document review for medium-risk situations.
• Apply enhanced steps only when high-risk actions or sensitive data are involved.
• Offer appeal or escalation channels when a request is denied due to identity doubts.

Practical application of risk-based methods in real cases

In everyday operations, most DSRs come from existing customers who already use secure portals, apps or accounts. In these cases, verifying that the request originates from a logged-in, authenticated profile is often sufficient.

Challenges grow when requests arrive through email, paper forms or third parties. These scenarios require additional checks to prevent impersonation, especially where sensitive records or bulk data exports are requested.

Organizations should maintain templates, scripts and workflows so that staff follow consistent steps instead of making case-by-case decisions without guidance.

1. Register the DSR and confirm receipt with a reference number.
2. Identify the requester, the channel used and the data or system involved.
3. Apply the appropriate verification level based on risk factors and available evidence.
4. Request limited additional proof only when necessary and proportionate.
5. Issue a reasoned response, documenting decisions and any partial or denied outcomes.

Technical details and relevant updates

Many privacy frameworks allow some flexibility in how organizations verify identity, as long as efforts are reasonable and proportionate. Over time, regulators and industry bodies have published guidance illustrating acceptable practices and common concerns.

Risk-based methods are increasingly linked to broader security and access management controls, such as multi-factor authentication and centralized identity systems. Aligning DSR verification with these controls reduces duplication and inconsistencies.

Organizations should periodically review their procedures to reflect new regulatory guidance, emerging fraud patterns and feedback received from individuals and supervisory authorities.

• Monitor new guidance and enforcement actions related to DSR handling.
• Review verification logs to identify recurring issues or bottlenecks.
• Adjust verification thresholds when fraud trends or technologies evolve.
• Provide training updates for staff who process DSRs.

Practical examples of risk-based identity verification

Consider a customer who submits an access request through a secure online portal. They are already authenticated with a password and a one-time code sent to their mobile phone. The organization treats this as a low to medium-risk scenario and uses the existing credentials as sufficient proof, logging the steps taken.

In a different case, a third party emails an access and deletion request on behalf of an individual, attaching a generic authorization letter. Because this involves a representative, high-impact actions and a less secure communication channel, the organization:

• Requests additional documentation proving the representative’s authority.
• Asks for confirmation from the individual through another contact point on file.
• Limits any disclosure until the identity and mandate are clearly established.

Common mistakes in risk-based DSR verification

• Applying identical verification steps to all DSRs regardless of risk.
• Requesting excessive personal data that is not needed for verification.
• Failing to document why certain evidence was considered sufficient or insufficient.
• Ignoring suspicious patterns or red flags in high-risk requests.
• Missing statutory response deadlines while waiting for unnecessary documents.
• Providing inconsistent answers to similar requests from different individuals.

FAQ about identity verification for DSRs

What does risk-based identity verification mean in DSRs?

It means adjusting the strength of identity checks to the risk involved in a specific request. Low-risk situations use lighter verification, while high-risk actions or sensitive data require stronger evidence and documentation.

Who is most affected by these verification procedures?

Both individuals exercising their privacy rights and organizations processing DSRs are affected. Individuals need practical ways to prove who they are, while organizations must prevent fraud and comply with legal obligations at the same time.

Which documents are commonly used to verify identity?

Typical options include authenticated account access, confirmation codes sent to contact details on file, copies of identification documents and authorizations for representatives. The exact combination depends on the risk level and applicable legal requirements.

Legal basis and case law

Most privacy laws require controllers to verify a requester’s identity before disclosing or erasing personal data, while also limiting verification data to what is reasonably necessary. The legal basis usually combines specific statutory provisions with broader principles of fairness, security and data minimization.

Courts and regulators tend to focus on whether verification steps were proportionate to the risk and consistent with written policies. They may view both overly lax and excessively restrictive practices as non-compliant if they lead to wrongful disclosure or unjustified denial of rights.

Guidance and enforcement decisions often stress the importance of clear procedures, staff training and written records explaining why a particular verification method was chosen in each context.

Final considerations

Identity verification for DSRs based on risk is essential to protect personal data and uphold individual rights. Well-designed procedures lower the chances of fraud or wrongful disclosure while helping organizations avoid unnecessary confrontation with regulators.

At the same time, verification should not become an obstacle that effectively prevents people from exercising their rights. Balancing these interests requires continuous review of methods, thresholds and communication practices.

Ultimately, each organization should regularly test its approach, track issues and refine the criteria used to classify and handle different types of DSRs. Transparency and consistency are key to building trust and demonstrating accountability.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not replace individualized analysis of the specific case by an attorney or qualified professional.