Skip to main content

PRI-18.2: Justification To Reject Disclosure Requests

PRI 5 — Medium Identify

Mechanisms exist to document justifiable reasons for rejecting a data subject's access request for disclosure when the request is: (1) Harassing; (2) Repetitive; (3) Fraudulent; (4) Unjustified; and/or (5) Unlawful.

Renumbered: Formerly PRI-07.5 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization document justifiable reasons for rejecting a data subject's access request for disclosure when the request is: (1) Harassing; (2) Repetitive; (3) Fraudulent; (4) Unjustified; and/or (5) Unlawful?

General (1)
Framework Mapping Values
CSA CCM 4.1.0 DSP-18
US (3)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal Data Privacy Framework 2023 III.8.g.i III.8.h.i
USA California CCPA 2025 7023(g) 7023(h) 7027(f) 7027(j)
USA Montana CDPA 2025 30-14-2808(4)(c) 30-14-2808(4)(d)
EMEA (6)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Austria FAPPD 2000 § 44(4)
EMEA Belgium Act 8 1992 Title 2, Chapter III, Art. 36(5)
EMEA Germany FDPA 2017 2.2.34(2) 3.3.59(4)
EMEA Nigeria DPR 2019 3.1(4)
EMEA Norway DPA 2018 16
EMEA Serbia 87/2018 III.1.21(2) III.1.22(2)
APAC (5)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC China Privacy Law 2021 Article 50
APAC Hong Kong PDO 2022 20(1) 20(1)(a) 20(1)(a)(i) 20(1)(a)(ii) 20(1)(a)(ii)(A) 20(1)(a)(ii)(B) 20(1)(b) 20(1)(c) 20(2)(a) 20(2)(b) 20(3) 20(3)(a) 20(3)(b) 20(3)(c) 20(3)(c)(i) 20(3)(c)(ii) 20(3)(c)(iii) 20(3)(d) 20(3)(e) 20(3)(f) 25(1)(a)
APAC Japan APPI 2020 IV.1.28(2)(i) IV.1.28(2)(ii) IV.1.28(2)(iii)
APAC Malaysia PDPA 2010 32(1)(d) 32(1)(d)(i) 32(1)(d)(ii) 32(1)(e) 32(1)(f) 32(1)(g) 32(1)(h)
APAC New Zealand Privacy Act of 2020 4.1.46(2) 4.1.46(3)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Mexico FDPA 2010 IV.34 IV.34.I IV.34.II IV.34.III IV.34.IV IV.34.V

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to reject data subject access requests that are categorized as: (1) Harassing; (2) Repetitive; or (3) Fraudulent.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PRI-18.2_A01 criteria to define what constitutes "repetitious or harassing" requests for access from data subjects is defined.
  2. PRI-18.2_A02 a process exists to document data subject requests.
  3. PRI-18.2_A03 data subject requests for access are analyzed for legitimacy.
  4. PRI-18.2_A04 a process exists to reject repetitious, or harassing, requests for access from data subjects.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Small

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Medium

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Large

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Enterprise

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.