7.1.4 Analysis of the EDPB

change regardless of what processing takes place 149. The IE SA also notes that the Draft Decision represents an assessment of the materials relied upon by WhatsApp IE at a particular point in time and does not purport to be determinative of all WhatsApp IE transparency issues into the future 150 . Additionally, regarding the contradictions on the information on the sharing of data with Facebook, the IE SA notes that the Draft Decision contains the order to WhatsApp IE to remedy the information deficits identified 151 .

166. Regarding the impact of the Draft Decision on the data subjects effective judicial protection, the IE SA stresses that no complaint is displaced by the existence of the Inquiry and that the assessments and outcomes recorded in the Draft Decision will not impact upon the unique circumstances of an individual complainant 152 .

167. The LSA considered that the objection raised by the HU SA on the finding of an additional infringement due to the invalidity of the consent obtained by WhatsApp IE is not "relevant and reasoned", since it falls outside of the scope of the investigation, that only focused on WhatsApp IE s transparency obligations. The IE SA also clarified that a separate investigation was pending on the issue of the legal grounds relied upon by WhatsApp IE 153 .

7.1.4 Analysis of the EDPB

7.1.4.1 Assessment of whether the objec tions were relevant and reasoned 168. The EDPB is of the opinion that the objections raised by the DE SA, relating respectively to the incomplete scope of the investigation regarding the factual level of the processing and the lack of investigation regarding data transfers to Facebook, are not "relevant and reasoned" as required by Article 4(24) GDPR.

169. In this respect, the EDPB first notes that the Guidelines on RRO address the situation in which an objection identifies gaps in the draft decision justifying the need for further investigation 154. When such objection is raised, it would be sufficient for the CSA to present the arguments in a conclusive and substantiated manner 155 .

170. As stated in the Guidelines on RRO, an objection is relevant when, if followed, it would entail a change leading to a different conclusion as to the existence of an infringement of the GDPR or the compliance of the envisaged action with the GDPR. Thus, there needs to be a link between the content of the objection and such potential different conclusion 156. Likewise, an objection is reasoned when, inter alia, it demonstrates how the change would lead to a different conclusion 157 .

171. In this case, the EDPB considers that the objections raised by the DE SA fail to clearly identify how the objection, if followed, would entail a change leading to a different conclusion as to whether there is an infringement of the GDPR. Regarding the first objection on the incompleteness of the scope, while

149 IE SA Composit e Re sponse, p aragraphs 16.d. and 17.a. 150 IE SA Composit e Re sponse, p aragraph 16.d. 151 IE SA Composit e Re sponse, p aragraph 17.a. 152 IE SA Composit e Re sponse, p aragraph 16.f. 153 IE SA Composit e Re sponse, p aragraph 19. 154 Guideline s on RRO, paragraph 27. 155 Guideline s on RRO, paragraph 19. 156 Guideline s on RRO, paragraph 13. 157 Guideline s on RRO, paragraph 16.