The GDPR isn't mentioned, but as one of the more stringent privacy regulation regimes, its 'right to erasure' has all sorts of conditions attached to it where a customer might be told that all of their data has been deleted, but some legally has to be (or can be) stored.
For example, you can store a record that an erased user requested erasure so you can prove it later on if needed in a legal situation (article 17.3.e). Updating such users about legal policies that apply to such retained data may still be subject to would seem rather inane but I could easily believe it existing as a policy at companies adopting a very eager interpretation of the regulations.
Can you claim to that user it is deleted when it is not just because you're holding onto it for legal reasons? I understand the need or requirement to hold some documents, but I don't understand how companies can lie to users claiming their information was deleted when it was not. IMO, they should be required to inform users what specific items were not deleted and the reasons for that.
It's semantics, but one man's "lying" is another man's pragmatic, non-legalese customer-facing wording.
For example "Your personal information has been deleted" versus the potentially much messier truth, which might involve citing the GDPR, mentioning that for accounting reasons you have to maintain their details on invoices, areas of your financial auditing process, that you're maintaining a record of their request to delete the account, and so on and so forth.
No, it's lying. If they say your data has been deleted without a qualifier that some of it remains undeleted (regardless of the reason), that's just a straight-up lie because their statement is factually untrue and they know it.
They could tell the truth without going into the specific messy detail.
For example, you can store a record that an erased user requested erasure so you can prove it later on if needed in a legal situation (article 17.3.e). Updating such users about legal policies that apply to such retained data may still be subject to would seem rather inane but I could easily believe it existing as a policy at companies adopting a very eager interpretation of the regulations.