Federal Jurisdiction in Habeas Data Actions is limited

The case “Ayala, Andrea Fabiana c/ Banco de Servicios y Transacciones S.A. s/ hábeas data (art. 43 C.N.)” debated whether federal courts should intervene in an action brought against a bank regarding an alleged inaccuracy in personal data related to a reported debt.

The plaintiff had filed a habeas data action to access the information the bank had about her and to request rectifying or deleting any inaccurate or erroneous data, if any. She had received multiple calls from alleged debt collectors and had verified that she appeared as a debtor in databases consulted by third parties, which derived in her filing the action.

There, she argued that the reported debt information was inaccurate and that the bank had shared this data with other entities, such as the Argentine Central Bank. Based on this, she claimed that the databases involved were interconnected and accessible online, which—from her viewpoint—justified federal jurisdiction under article 36 of the Personal Data Protection Law 25326 (PDPL).

Both the first instance court and the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters rejected the plaintiff’s argument. The trial court ordered the case to be referred to the national courts in commercial matters. Likewise, the Court of Appeals stated that the case involved a conflict between the plaintiff and the bank, governed by commercial law, and that none of the circumstances in article 36 of the PDPL were present in the case, which made federal jurisdiction not applicable.

Upon reviewing the plaintiff’s appeal, the Argentine Supreme Court held that the habeas data action had been brought so that the bank would provide the information it held in its databases about the plaintiff and correct such data if there were any errors or inaccuracies. The Court further clarified that the PDPL only provides federal jurisdiction as an exception in cases where the purpose is to delete data or content in public information databases or those interconnected in interjurisdictional networks, which—according to the Court—was not the case. Therefore, the Court affirmed the ruling.

Through this decision, the Supreme Court confirmed a line of case law that favors a strict interpretation of the exceptions that allow for federal jurisdiction, particularly in the context of habeas data actions. The ruling makes it clear that the mere existence of personal data in interjurisdictional networks or state databases is not, by itself, sufficient to federalize the conflict. Jurisdiction remains with the commercial courts when the legal relationship involves private parties, even if the case concerns access to, correction, or deletion of personal data that might arguably meet the criteria under article 36 of the PDPL.