FB Group Admin Fined $7,500 for Ignoring Privacy Request
An administrator of a private Facebook group called “Landlords Only” has been ordered by Novel Zealand’s Human Rights Review Tribunal to pay NZ$7,500 in damages for refusing to remove a tenant’s personal information after a formal privacy request under the Privacy Act 2020.
The ruling, issued on March 27, 2026, followed a complaint filed by a tenant who discovered their full name, rental address, and contact details had been posted in the group without consent. The tenant requested removal of the information under Principle 11 of the Privacy Act, which gives individuals the right to request correction or deletion of personal data held by an agency. The group administrator, identified only as the page’s primary moderator, declined to act, stating the post was “publicly shared” and therefore not subject to removal requests.
The tribunal found the administrator’s refusal constituted an interference with the tenant’s privacy, noting that the group, despite being labeled private, functioned as a public-facing forum where sensitive personal data was routinely shared among landlords to screen tenants. The decision emphasized that administrators of online communities bear responsibility for content posted within their groups, particularly when it involves personal information subject to privacy protections.
In its judgment, the tribunal cited the administrator’s failure to engage with the privacy request process as a key factor in determining liability. It stated that even if the original poster was not liable, the administrator, as the entity controlling access and content moderation, had a duty to respond to valid privacy requests under the Act. The tribunal rejected arguments that the group’s private status exempted it from obligations under the Privacy Act, noting that the law applies to any entity handling personal information, regardless of the platform’s accessibility settings.
The NZ$7,500 award reflects the tribunal’s assessment of the harm caused, including emotional distress and reputational risk to the tenant, who reported difficulty securing future housing after the information circulated. The decision does not impose penalties on Facebook or the original poster, focusing solely on the administrator’s failure to comply with the privacy request.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal has not issued any further orders in the case, and the administrator has not publicly appealed the ruling as of the date of publication. The group remains active on Facebook, with no public indication of changes to its moderation policies or data handling practices following the tribunal’s decision.