Neither the summary nor the headline are misleading.
Still, I'm heartened you took the time to read TFA.
After another four weeks, The BFDI told Alvaro's office in a telephone call that the request had still not been forwarded to American authorities. There was, still no agreement between the US authorities and the BFDI. The American authorities would require still more data from the applicant. Nevertheless, Alvaro consented to have the data in question forwarded to the American authorities.
emphasis mine
The reporter uses the phrase "There was, still...". Almost a year later, there was still no agreement between the BFDI and the the Americans This is a crucial point, as such an agreement was a condition of the treaty.
Consider the phrase "The American authorities would require still more data..." I infer the Americans had been involved from the start. After all, how would the BFDI know the Americans required still more data if they hadn't been communicating with them? Why would the BFDI speak for their interlocutors when it comes to the need for such information?
Finally, the reporter states that
At the same time, the agency said it had no information or authority to determine whether and who has accessed his data in the US.
Again, providing this information is one of the conditions of the treaty. The U.S. must provide this information.