The financial institution refused the data erasure request of a customer, arguing that it was in the institution’s best interests to retain the phone number, given that the customer had debts. However, the NAIH argued that the creditor could communicate with the debtor by post, and the phone number was unnecessary. The financial institution had broken the data minimization and purpose limitation principles. A fine was issued equal to 0.025% of the institution’s annual net revenue.
the financial institution refused the data erasure request of a customer arguing that it was in the institution’s best interests to retain the phone number given that the customer had debts however the naih argued that the creditor could communicate with the debtor by post and the phone number was unnecessary the financial institution had broken the data minimization and purpose limitation principles a  was issued equal to % of the institution’s annual net revenue
 financial institution refuse  data erasure request   customer argue      institution’ best interest  retain  phone number give   customer  debts however  naih argue   creditor could communicate   debtor  post   phone number  unnecessary  financial institution  break  data minimization  purpose limitation principles    issue equal  %   institution’ annual net revenue