Financial – Links

Note: PIAC is in no way responsible for the content of the websites or activities of the listed organizations.

Bank Fees:

Make sure you’re not paying too much with Financial Consumer Agency of Canada’s interactive Cost of Banking Guide

Credit Card Rates:

Select the best credit card for you and answer your questions about credit cards with Financial Consumer Agency of Canada’s Interactive Credit Card Tool

Credit Reporting

The three major credit reporting agencies:

 

Energy – Links

Note: PIAC is in no way responsible for the content of the websites or activities of the listed organizations.

 

Consumer Group Calls for Increased Scrutiny of Loyalty Programs

OTTAWA, November 13, 2013 – Consumers need more protection in their loyalty programs, according to a report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) entitled, “Customer Loyalty Programs: Are Rules Needed?” The report based calls for a rebalancing of the scales between consumers and loyalty providers.
The report looked at the popularity of loyalty program branded credit cards and found a loyalty program is the primary factor that makes a card a consumer’s preferred choice. Such programs are a significant revenue generator for Canada’s banking institutions. In return for using their loyalty brand credit card, Canadian consumers typically receive about 2% of their spending, back in terms of rewards, unless they use a credit card with an annual fee. As a result, Canadians usually have to spend over $1000 to obtain a $20 reward. The study recommends an evaluation be done to assess loyalty programs and credit cards.
“PIAC is calling on policy makers to define ‘loyalty currency’ as a form of non-cash payment, with the intention of having loyalty currency enjoy protections similar to other forms of payment under the payments system in Canada” added John Lawford, Executive Director of PIAC. The report noted that consumers have little recourse when loyalty program providers unilaterally decide to devalue their loyalty currency, or change other terms and conditions of loyalty programs. In its recommendations the report concluded industry-wide guidelines be introduced relating to loyalty currency devaluation to provide greater certainty for consumers.
“The collection of consumers’ purchasing data is the prize for customer loyalty program providers,” noted Jonathan Bishop, PIAC Research Analyst, “the data is the main reason behind loyalty brand marketing which aims to both keep customers and have them spend on other products and services”.
Other recommendations in the report include the creation of a complaints body for consumers on issues that arise relating to the operation of loyalty programs, industry-wide guidelines introduced regarding the notice given to change loyalty program terms and conditions, loyalty program withdrawal, as well as for practices relating to the transfer and bequeathing of loyalty program currency.
Download the report at Customer Loyalty Programs: Are Rules Needed?
Download French edition of the report at Programmes de fidélisation de la clientèle ― des règles sont-elles nécessaires?
The appendices to the report are at this link.
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×25
Mobile (613) 447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Consumers Group Calls for Increased Accountability from Financial Planners

OTTAWA – Canadian consumers need increased protection when dealing with the financial planning industry, according to a report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) entitled, “Purse Strings Attached: Towards a Financial Planning Regulatory Framework.” The report, which follows a 2009 investigation of the same industry, reveals that progress has been made in recognizing the need for reform. However, the pace of this process has been slow for an industry entrusted with the financial security of Canadian consumers.
“It’s time all employees of the financial planning industry in Canada face the reality-they need to employ a uniform standard of care for investors, complete with a full disclosure of how they’re being compensated,” noted Jonathan Bishop, Research Analyst at PIAC and co-author of the report. The report found that other jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia, have recently addressed difficult issues in their financial planning industries, such as the disclosure of compensation structure and a duty to clients. Canada meanwhile, has yet to resolve these financial planning reform issues.
The report concluded the time remains ripe for provincial consumer and finance ministries to work towards a regulatory framework for financial advisors and, if constructive, a regulatory regime for financial planners in each province. “PIAC continues to believe a financial advisor legal framework similar to what exists in Québec is clearly the most beneficial to consumers and should be adopted with local modifications by all provinces,” contends John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC.
Other recommendations include the introduction of a personal tax credit for using a fee-based financial planner, in order to motivate clients to switch to this method. “Our research reveals Canadian consumers are potentially leaving thousands of their retirement dollars in someone else’s hands by not being fully informed of how their financial planner is being compensated. As Canadians become increasingly concerned about their ability to finance retirement, this issue is just too important to ignore,” notes Bishop.
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
Download the new Public Interest Advocacy Centre report “Purse Strings Attached: Towards a Financial Planning Regulatory Framework”:

thumb_pdfPurse Strings Attached
Download File: pursestrings_attached_final_for_oca.pdf [size: 1.54 mb]

 
Le nouveau rapport par le Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP) intitulé « SERRER LES CORDONS DE LA BOURSE : VERS UN CADRE DE RÉGLEMENTATION DE LA PLANIFICATION FINANCIÈRE » peut être téléchargé ici:

thumb_pdfSERRER LES CORDONS DE LA BOURSE
Download File: pursestrings_attached_final_for_oca_fr.pdf [size: 0.63 mb]

 
For more information please contact:
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×25
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
 

Spectrum Auctions Need Measures to Promote Competition and Public Interest Uses

OTTAWA–Auctions of radio spectrum for wireless service have been a mechanism for maximizing their value for the Canadian government, according to a new report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Entitled “The Consumer Interest in Spectrum Auctions,” this examination overviews the development of spectrum allocation policy. The report contends that policy objectives such as promotion of a fully competitive Canadian wireless market are difficult to achieve without utilizing measures such as set asides and caps on spectrum. However, the achievement of these public objectives should take precedence over the final amount raised for government a coffer, the report concludes.
”In short, the highest bidder, who may simply intend to use ownership of the spectrum to thwart competition and innovation, should not always win, noted the author, Michael Janigan, special counsel to PIAC. The government has recognized this and moderated the potential dominance of existing wireless incumbents in the process. The report surmises that the initial pessimism about spectrum auctions from public interest advocates may be dissipated by continued efforts to address market flaws and public opportunities through the auction process.
The full report (English) is available for download at: The Consumer Interest in Spectrum Auctions [pdf file: 0.52mb]
The full report (French) is available for download at: L’intérêt du consommateur dans les enchères du spectre [pdf file: 1.13mb]
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Michael Janigan
Special Counsel, Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 26
mjanigan@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 25
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Canadian Consumers Need Better Disclosure About Internet Speed and Performance Claims

OTTAWA – Canadian consumers have high expectations of advertised internet speed claims but receive little information from internet service providers to judge them on, according to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s (PIAC) latest report: “Transparency in Broadband Advertising to Canadian Consumers.”
The report examines broadband internet advertisements such as commonly used “up to” speed claims and sought consumers’ views on whether these advertisements are clear.
“When an internet package advertises a maximum speed, Canadian consumers expect the maximum speed advertised will be achievable at their home connection,” according to Janet Lo, Legal Counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and co-author of the report.
PIAC’s survey gauged consumer expectations towards “up to” speed advertisements by walking consumers through a series of sample advertisements to assess whether consumer impressions shifted after reading a disclaimer about the speed claim achievability. In each scenario, a majority of consumers mistakenly believed they would achieve the maximum advertised speed, no matter the style or clarity of the “up to” speed disclaimer.
“Internet service providers provide very little information to consumers about technical factors and their effect on the achievability of the advertised speed claim,” noted Lo. “The fine print is confusing to consumers and does not tell consumers how to check the actual speeds they are receiving.”
Further complicating matters is a lack of consumer awareness. PIAC’s survey showed 75% of respondents did not know which speed tier to which they subscribe, even though 83% of consumers identified download speed as very important or somewhat important when choosing an ISP for their home. PIAC’s report therefore suggests that consumers are not fully and effectively informed about internet speed and performance claims even though they have high expectations with respect to the achievability of promised “up to” internet speeds.
PIAC’s report recommends that ISPs provide more complete and precise disclosure about various aspects of internet performance and the reliability of these claims. It also recommends that ISPs ensure disclosures are prominent in advertising and in consumer contracts.
PIAC’s report recommends that the Competition Bureau of Canada consider specific enforcement guidelines focused on how advertising claims about internet speed performance are conveyed to consumers. The report further recommends that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) monitor the retail internet market by collecting performance data on Canadian retail internet service speeds and comparing that data to advertised claims.
The full report is available for download at:

thumb_pdfDownload File: piac_transparency_broadband_ads_final.pdf [size: 1.04 mb]

 
The full report is available in French for download at:

thumb_pdfDownload File: cdip_transparence_publicit_visant_large_bande_finale.pdf [size: 0.95 mb]

 
 
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 24
jlo@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Canadian Consumers Expect Better Protections for International Roaming Fees

New PIAC report, “Consumers and Wireless Data Roaming”

OTTAWA – Canadian wireless subscribers want better protection from international data roaming fees, according to a report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) entitled “Consumers and Wireless Data Roaming.” The report examined wireless service, billing practices and consumer experiences related to international data roaming fees, and how these fees affect the wireless device usage of consumers when outside of Canada. It also provides a comparative look at consumer protection measures implemented and considered in other countries to determine what actions, if any, are required to limit the occasions of bill shock experienced by Canadian consumers.
“Canadians are clearly frustrated with international data roaming fees they currently pay and are scared of unexpectedly large bills from their wireless provider when they travel,” according to Janet Lo, Legal Counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and co- author of the report. PIAC found that 89% of Canadian consumers surveyed feel they pay too much for wireless data when they travel outside of Canada, while 89% have received an unexpectedly large wireless bill for data roaming charges while traveling.
The report also found that a majority of Canadian consumers surveyed who travelled with their wireless device:
•expressed that billing related to international roaming charges is difficult to understand;
•rarely buy a data plan add-on, and if they do, feel they paid too much for it;
•are not confident in estimating the cost of their international data roaming travelling;
•believe regulation is required to compel wireless service providers to notify consumers about the charges they have incurred for roaming while they’re travelling; and,
•remain insecure about using their wireless device while traveling internationally, since 44% of respondents surveyed prefer to leave the device turned off while they travel, while 16% simply leave their wireless device at home.
In order to alleviate consumer frustration, PIAC recommends that the CRTC require Canadian wireless carriers to notify subscribers via text message of the applicable international data roaming rates when they enter another country. Moreover, PIAC recommends that Canadian wireless providers be required to implement a monthly bill limit for data roaming to safeguard consumers against bill shock. The monthly limit would be chosen by the subscriber or default to $50 in addition to the subscriber’s monthly fees, and temporarily suspend data service when the subscriber incurs roaming fees exceeding this limit.
PIAC also recommends greater transparency regarding wholesale roaming rates paid and charged by Canadian wireless service providers to the CRTC. “The collection of wholesale roaming rate data would give the CRTC the ability to monitor whether retail roaming rates for Canadian consumers are fair or represent a disproportionate mark-up for Canadian consumers in accordance with market expectations,” said Jonathan Bishop, co-author of the report. The report notes that European regulators regulate the wholesale and retail rates for international roaming and many other foreign regulators have studied the issue of international roaming rates.
In the meantime, PIAC suggests the Canadian Government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission CRTC should examine the wholesale cost of roaming through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with other countries, ensuring that countries with the largest number of Canadian visitors are given priority. “Since a vast majority of Canadian tourists travel to the United States, it only makes sense for the CRTC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to initially engage in such discussions,” noted Lo.
 

thumb_pdf“Consumers and Wireless Data”
Download File: piac_consumers_wirelessroaming_final.pdf [size: 0.45 mb]

 
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 24
Mobile 613-816-5688
jlo@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Affairs Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×25
Mobile (613)447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Les consommateurs canadiens attendent de meilleures protections contre les frais d’itinérance à l’étranger

Le 10 décembre 2012
OTTAWA – Les abonnés canadiens aux services sans fil désirent être mieux protégés contre les frais d’itinérance à l’étranger associés à la transmission de données, selon un rapport publié aujourd’hui par le Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP) intitulé « Les consommateurs et les frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission sans fil des données ».
Le rapport examine les services sans fil, les pratiques de facturation et l’expérience des consommateurs relativement aux frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission des données, de même que leurs répercussions sur l’utilisation d’appareils sans fil par les consommateurs lorsqu’ils voyagent à l’étranger. Le rapport jette également un regard comparatif sur les mesures de protection du consommateur mises en œuvre et envisagées par d’autres pays en vue de déterminer les interventions requises, au besoin, en vue de limiter les situations de « factures astronomiques » éprouvées par les consommateurs canadiens.
« Les Canadiens éprouvent manifestement des frustrations envers les frais d’itinérance internationale associés à la transmission sans fil de données et craignent de recevoir pendant leur voyage des factures coûteuses imprévues de la part de leurs fournisseurs de services sans fil, » indique Janet Lo, conseillère juridique au Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public et coauteur du rapport.
Le CDIP a observé que 89 % de consommateurs canadiens interrogés estiment qu’ils paient trop cher les services de transmission sans fil de données à l’étranger, alors que 89 % ont déjà reçu une facture de services sans fil beaucoup plus élevée que prévu pour des frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission de données en voyage.
Le rapport a également constaté que la majorité de consommateurs canadiens interrogés ayant voyagé avec leur appareil sans fil :
•ont indiqué que la facturation des frais d’itinérance internationale est difficile à comprendre;
•achètent rarement des forfaits de données complémentaires et, le cas échéant, estiment qu’ils sont trop coûteux;
•manquent de confiance dans l’estimation des coûts d’itinérance à l’étranger associés à la transmission de données;
•sont d’avis qu’une réglementation est nécessaire afin d’imposer aux fournisseurs de services sans fil des notifications obligatoires aux consommateurs au sujet des frais d’itinérance encourus lorsqu’ils voyagent;
•demeurent dans l’incertitude quant à l’utilisation de leur appareil sans fil en voyage à l’étranger, car 44 % des répondants préfèrent laisser leur appareil éteint en voyage, tandis que 16 % le laissent simplement à la maison.
En vue de pallier les frustrations des consommateurs, le CDIP a recommandé que le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications (CRTC) exige des fournisseurs canadiens de services sans fil qu’ils avisent les abonnés par message texte des frais d’itinérance internationale applicables à la transmission de données lorsqu’ils arrivent dans un autre pays.
En outre, le CDIP recommande que les fournisseurs canadiens de services sans fil soient tenus de mettre en œuvre un plafond mensuel de facturation de la transmission de données en itinérance afin de protéger les consommateurs contre les factures astronomiques. La limite mensuelle serait choisie par l’abonné ou fixée par défaut à 50 $ en plus des frais mensuels de l’abonné et le service de transmission de données serait temporairement interrompu lorsque l’abonné assume des frais d’itinérance supérieurs à cette limite.
Le CDIP recommande aussi une transparence accrue des frais d’itinérance de gros payés et facturés par les fournisseurs canadiens de service sans fil au CRTC. « La collecte de données sur les frais d’itinérance de gros donnerait au CRTC la capacité de vérifier si les tarifs d’itinérance de détail facturés aux consommateurs canadiens sont justes ou représentent une majoration disproportionnée, conformément aux attentes du marché, » indique Jonathan Bishop, coauteur du rapport. Le rapport note que les organismes de réglementation européens ont assujetti les tarifs d’itinérance internationale de gros et de détail à une réglementation et que de nombreux autres organismes étrangers de réglementation se sont penchés sur la question des frais d’itinérance à l’étranger.
Entre-temps, le CDIP suggère au gouvernement canadien et au CRTC d’examiner le coût de gros de l’itinérance dans le cadre de négociations bilatérales et multilatérales auprès d’autres pays, afin que les pays comptant le plus grand nombre de visiteurs canadiens reçoivent la priorité. « Puisque la grande majorité des touristes canadiens se rendent aux États-Unis, il est tout à fait logique que le CRTC entame d’abord de telles discussions avec la Commission fédérale des communications (FCC) des États-Unis, » note Me Lo.
Le rapport intégral peut être téléchargé au Les consommateurs et les frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission sans fil des données [pdf file: 0.51mb]
Le Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public a reçu du financement du Programme de contributions pour les organisations sans but lucratif de consommateurs et de bénévoles d’Industrie Canada. Les opinions exprimées dans le rapport ne sont pas nécessairement celles d’Industrie Canada ni du gouvernement du Canada.
Renseignements aux médias :
Janet Lo
Conseillère juridique
Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP)
613-562-4002 poste 24
Cellulaire : 613-816-5688
jlo@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
Jonathan Bishop
Analyste de la recherche et des affaires parlementaires
Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP)
613-562-4002 poste 23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Directeur général et avocat général
Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP)
613-562-4002 poste 25
Cellulaire : 613-447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
 
 

Commissioner’s Findings – Bell Mobility

Privacy Commissioner
Commissaire a la protection of Canada de la vie privee du Canada
112, rue Kent
Ottawa (Ontario)
K1A1H3
Tel.: (613) 995-8210
Telec: (613) 947-6850
1-800-282-1376
www.privcom.gc.ca
File: 6100-0216
Ms Philippa Lawson
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
1 Nicholas Street, Suite 1204 Ottawa, ON K1N7B7
Dear Ms Lawson:
This letter constitutes my report of findings with regard to the complaint you filed against Bell Mobility under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the Act). In your complaint, you made reference to Principle 4.3 (Consent) of Schedule 1 to the Act and alleged that Bell Mobility was not obtaining informed consent from individuals for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes. Specifically, you alleged that Bell Mobility was not bringing to the attention of its customers (a) its policy of sharing customer data with other Bell Canada affiliates for secondary marketing purposes and (b) the corresponding opportunity for customers to opt-out of such sharing.
I have determined, first of all, that the subject matter of your complaint does fall within my jurisdiction under the Act. As of January 1, 2001, the Act applies to any federal work, undertaking, or business. By operation of constitutional law, any telecommunications company, such as Bell Mobility, is a federal work, undertaking, or business. On this basis, therefore, I was required under section 12 of the Act to accept and investigate your complaint.
You initially filed a complaint against Bell Canada. Some weeks later, you clarified to my Office that you had intended your complaint to apply to the information practices of Bell Canada’s affiliates as well. You may have assumed that Bell’s affiliates formed part of the Bell corporate entity. Bell’s affiliates are in fact separate corporate entities; moreover, only three of them are federal works, undertakings, or businesses subject to the Act. A separate complaint file has been opened for each of these three Bell affiliates that fall under my jurisdiction. Bell Mobility is one of the three.
I have also determined from the facts of the case that the information at issue is personal information for purposes of the Act. Section 2 of the Act defines personal information to be ”…information about an identifiable individual…”. It is clear from the wording of your complaint that your concern is information about Bell Mobility’s customers as identifiable individuals.
Before I provide you with my other findings, let me first outline the facts obtained in the course of my Office’s investigation.
You have filed similar complaints against several organizations. For all of these complaints, you have formulated a general position, in support of which you have submitted a market research survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates Inc. I summarize your position as follows:

  • It is always appropriate to ensure the individual’s knowledge and consent in respect of secondary marketing purposes.
  • There is a clear difference, however, between marketers and the marketed on the issue of what form of consent is appropriate – that is, express consent versus implied consent.
  • Companies often appear to take the view that a customer’s consent to secondary marketing can be taken as implied provided that the policy in question is stated in some document that is accessible to the customer. However, companies have an obligation not merely to state purposes in a policy document, but also to bring to the attention of the individual customer the practices in question and the negative option attached.
  • Companies commonly fall short of meeting this obligation in several ways:
    • reliance on a document not provided to the individual customer, but rather left up to the customer to find on his or her own initiative;
    • reliance on fine print buried in a long document;
    • failure to use clear, plain language understandable to the ordinary consumer;
    • failure to provide customers with adequately detailed information about the extent and purpose of contemplated uses and sharing of their personal information; and
    • failure to provide an easily executable opting-out procedure.
  • The EKOS marketing survey shows a preference for opt-in versus opt-out consent among a clear majority of respondents. Opt-out consent is considered acceptable only under conditions where the opting-out provision is brought to the customer’s attention, is clearly worded and sufficiently detailed, and is easy to execute.

Bell Mobility readily acknowledges that it does disclose customers’ personal information for marketing purposes to Bell ExpressVu, another Bell Canada affiliate that is subject to the Act. The information in question comprises contact data (i.e., name, mailing address, home and work telephone numbers, e-mail address), as well as indications of services or products purchased, average monthly billing, credit records, and complaint records. Bell Mobility’s disclosure of such information to Bell ExpressVu is limited at present, but is expected to increase in the future.
Bell Mobility also acknowledges that it does not itself actively seek, at the time an individual customer purchases a product or subscribes to a service, consent to disclosure of the customer’s personal information to Bell ExpressVu. Rather, like other Bell Canada affilitates, Bell Mobility relies upon the notion of “implied consent” as explained in Bell Canada’s privacy code, the “Bell Code of Fair Information Practices”. Bell Mobility and its sister affiliates have adopted as their own the parent company’s privacy policy and practices, as set out mainly in two documents – the 17-page Bell Code and the 9-page “Bell Customer Privacy Policy”.
The Bell Code defines implied consent as “consent that can reasonably be inferred from an individual’s action or inaction.” Clause 3.7 of the Code states as follows:
In general, the use of products and services by a customer… constitutes implied consent for the Bell companies to collect, use and disclose personal information for all identified purposes.
As far as the exchange with Bell ExpressVu in particular is concerned, Bell Mobility takes clause 3.7 to mean that, if a customer obtains a product or service at Bell Mobility, he or she implicitly consents to having personal information disclosed to Bell ExpressVu.
The Code does identify the “Bell companies” in question and sets out five general purposes for their collection of personal information, including “To develop, enhance, market or provide products and services.” However, the Code does not indicate that this or any other of the purposes applies specifically to disclosures of information between Bell companies and indeed does not specify that the companies disclose customers’ personal information to one another. On being asked to explain this omission, Bell Canada maintained that such disclosure is implicit in the treatment of the Bell companies collectively as a single organization for the purpose of the Code.
Bell Canada’s Privacy Policy does assign a purpose specifically to disclosures of personal information between Bell Companies, as follows:
The purpose for sharing information among the Bell companies is to help us identify your information, communication and entertainment needs, and provide you with relevant information, advice, and solutions.
It is to be noted, however, that this purpose is not identical with any of the five stated in the Bell Code. It seems closest in meaning to “To develop, enhance, market or provide products and services”, but the verb “market” is conspicuously absent.
Bell Canada communicates its privacy policy and practices to customers through mail-outs (e.g., inserts in telephone bills), the white pages of the telephone directory, websites, and literature made available at Bell World stores. In the year 2000, a brochure entitled “The Bell Privacy Policy and You” was mailed out as a bill insert to all Bell customers.
That brochure included a notification to the effect that customers who did not wish to have their personal information disclosed among Bell companies (listed in the brochure) could withdraw consent by calling Bell Canada at the number shown on bills or electronically via Bell’s various websites. The brochure also stated that customers could view or obtain copies of the Bell Code and Privacy Policy by the same means.
Bell Canada’s white-pages telephone directory likewise informs customers that, if they wish to view or obtain a copy of the Bell Code or Privacy Policy, or if they have concerns about their privacy, they may contact one of the Bell websites or call the number on their telephone bill. However, the directory does not indicate any method or possibility of opting-out of information disclosures among the Bell companies.
The Bell Canada website contains the Bell Code and Privacy Policy as well as other privacy-related information, including instructions on opting-out of information disclosure among the Bell companies and an electronic opt-out form to be used for that purpose. Bell Mobility’s website links back to the Bell Canada site and is thus also linked indirectly to the privacy-related information and the electronic opt-out form. However, although Bell Mobility accepts opt-outs from its customers via this electronic form as well as by telephone or in writing, its own website makes no direct reference to an opportunity or method of opting-out or even to the practice of sharing information with other Bell affiliates. Nor does Bell Mobility, in any other situation or manner, make a point of advertising these optional considerations to its customers.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the information provided in Bell Canada’s privacy-related communications materials, notably the Bell Code and Privacy Policy, Bell Mobility has taken the position that its own customers are duly informed, in accordance with Principle 4.3.2 of Schedule 1 to the Act, both of the purposes for which personal information will be used and disclosed, and of the opportunity for easily opting-out of the specific practice of information disclosure among affiliates. Furthermore, Bell Mobility contends that the disclosure of personal information among common-branded companies providing a range of related communications services is consistent with the reasonable expectations of its customers as contemplated under Principle 4.3.5.
On the basis of these facts, I am required to determine whether Bell Mobility is in compliance with Principles 4.2.3, 4.3, and 4.3.1 of Schedule 1 to the Act. In this case, where the central issue is consent, I am also obliged to take due account of Principle 4.3.5 in my deliberations.
Principle 4.2.3 states that identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal information is collected. Principle 4.3 states that the knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate. Principle 4.3.1 states, in part, that an organization will typically seek consent for the use or disclosure of the information at the time of collection. Principle 4.3.5 states that, in obtaining consent, the reasonable expectations of the individual are relevant.
I will begin by stating that I consider your expectations regarding consent, as you have expressed them in your submission, to be entirely reasonable and in keeping with the Act. First and foremost, I note that Principles 4.2.3 and 4.3.1 clearly support your expectation that an organization should not merely make policy documents generally available, but should actually bring to the attention of the individual at the time of collection its purposes for collecting, using, and disclosing personal information. When an organization collects personal information during an application, subscription, or purchasing process, it should take reasonable steps during the same process to specify to the individual, and seek the individual’s express consent for, any intended secondary uses or disclosures. It follows that the organization should be prepared to provide the individual, on the spot, with whatever information he or she may require to make a knowledgeable consent decision. In such situations, I consider it entirely reasonable, as you have suggested, for an individual to expect not to have to seek out or otherwise rely upon information that is not immediately at hand.
I also consider it only reasonable for the individual to expect to be informed, likewise during the same process, of the opportunity and a convenient method for withdrawing consent.
Finally, where an organization intends to disclose personal information that the individual is likely to consider sensitive, such as credit records and complaint records, I consider it reasonable for the individual to expect to be consulted directly and positively in the matter of consent. In such a situation, the organization should use positive or “opt-in” consent rather than the negative option.
It is obvious that, in relying wholly upon its parent company’s notion of implied consent, Bell Mobility does not meet the reasonable expectations described above and deemed relevant under Principle 4.3.5. At the time of collecting a customer’s personal information during a subscription or purchasing process, Bell Mobility does not supply the customer with information about its intention to disclose personal information to its sister affiliate Bell ExpressVu, to obtain the customer’s consent for such disclosure, or to notify the customer of the opportunity and method of opting-out of such disclosure. It is not reasonable for Bell Mobility to rely upon the presumption of the customer’s knowledge and consent on the basis of general policy documents that it has not itself brought directly to the attention of the customer.
I find therefore that Bell Mobility has failed to comply with Principles 4.2.3 and 4.3.1 and, having failed to meet the individual’s reasonable expectations regarding consent as deemed relevant under Principle 4.3.5, is also in contravention of Principle 4.3.
Accordingly, I conclude that your complaint is well-founded.
I am recommending that Bell Mobility, at the time of collecting personal information from any customer during a subscription or purchasing process, directly inform the individual customer of the purposes for which personal information is collected and seek his or her consent for intended uses and disclosures. In implementing this recommendation, Bell Mobility should ensure that:

  • purposes are stated in such a manner that the customer can reasonably understand how personal information is to be used or disclosed, in accordance with Principle 4.3.2 of Schedule 1;
  • intended uses and disclosures are well-defined especially in respect of
    • the items or types of information to be used or disclosed;
    • the parties to which information is to be disclosed; and
    • the purposes for which information is to be disclosed (e.g., direct marketing);
  • the customer is directly notified of the opportunity to withdraw consent to specific optional purposes (e.g., direct marketing); and
  • the customer is provided with, and directly notified of, an easy, immediate, and inexpensive means of opting-out (e.g., a check-off box or toll-free telephone number).

I am also recommending that Bell Mobility, at the time of collecting personal information during a subscription or purchasing process, provide individual customers with an opt-in consent form relating specifically to disclosures to Bell ExpressVu and to any other party to which Bell Mobility intends to disclose personal information of a potentially sensitive nature, such as credit information.
Now that you have my report, I must inform you that, pursuant to section 14 of the Act, you have the legal right to apply to the Federal Court, Trial Division, for a hearing in respect of any matter that you complained about or that I have dealt with in my report, and that is referred to in clause 4.1.3, 4.2, 4.3.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 or 4.8 of Schedule 1, in clause 4.3, 4.5 or 4.9 of the Schedule as modified or clarified by the Act, in subsection 5(3), or 8(6) or (7) or in section 10.
Should you wish to proceed to the Court, we suggest you contact the Trial Division of the Court office nearest you. It is located at the Supreme Court Building, Kent & Wellington, Ottawa, ON K1A OH9, telephone (613) 992-4238. Normally, an application must be made within 45 days of the date of this letter.
You should also be aware that the Court has discretion to order that the costs of the other party be paid by you where the Court is of the view that this is appropriate. While this does not happen often, it is a possibility of which you should be aware. Conversely, the Court may order that your costs be paid where the Court finds that your application raises an important new principle.
This concludes the investigation of your complaint. If you have any questions or comments about the disposition of the complaint, I would invite you to contact Mr. Gerald Neary, Director General of Investigations, at 1-800-282-1376.
Yours sincerely,
George Radwanski
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
 

PIAC Complaint Upheld: Privacy Commissioner Finds Social Network Must Respect Teen Privacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attention: News and Business Editors
PIAC Complaint Upheld: Privacy Commissioner Finds Social Network Must Respect Teen Privacy
March 1, 2012
(OTTAWA)— The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada decision released today finding popular youth-oriented social networking site Nexopia.com Inc.’s privacy practices are in violation of Canadian privacy law comes in response to a complaint filed over two years ago by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
PIAC, a consumer advocacy group based in Ottawa, applauded the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s decision concerning Nexopia.com Inc. (Nexopia) under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Privacy Commissioner’s decision upheld all of PIAC’s concerns and issued 24 recommendations to Nexopia to improve the privacy of their teen social networking users.
“The Privacy Commissioner’s finding tells social networking sites with teen users that these services must create spaces for expression that are privacy-respecting and give real control to teens over their online privacy,” said John Lawford, co-counsel for PIAC on the complaint.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada agreed with PIAC, finding that Nexopia’s default privacy settings of sharing all user profile information with the whole internet as a default setting do not properly consider the reasonable expectations of its users under the age of 18.
The Privacy Commissioner also found that Nexopia violated Canadian privacy law with respect to its collection, use and disclosure of personal information collected at registration, sharing personal information with advertisers and other third parties and the retention of personal information of users and visitors. Nexopia has agreed to implement corrective measures in relation to 20 of the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations. Nexopia has agreed to change its default privacy settings to share profile information only with users’ “friends” on the site by June 30, 2012.
“This is a huge step forward for online youth privacy,” said Janet Lo, co-counsel for PIAC on the complaint. “We are pleased that Nexopia has stated it will change its system to respect Canadian privacy law moving forward. We are, however, disappointed that Nexopia has said it will not comply with the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations to change its data retention practices. Nexopia insists on archiving the personal information of its users indefinitely, even after a user deletes his or her account.”
PIAC is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s finding is found at: PIPEDA Report of Findings #2012-001
A redacted version of PIAC’s original complaint filed January 18, 2012 can be found at Nexopia_Complaint_FINAL2_redacted
For more information, please contact:
Janet Lo
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlo@piac.ca
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
jlawford@piac.ca

Consumers should be wary of risks in virtual worlds

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today released a report entitled “A Virtual Fortune: Consumer Protection for Banking and Consumer Fraud in Virtual Worlds”. The report studies virtual worlds, which are sometimes described as “massively multiplayer online role-playing games” (MMPORGs) that provide an immersive virtual experience for many players that many players consider to be “real”. Many virtual worlds have developed virtual economies based on a virtual currency that may be exchanged for real-world currency. Players will play the role of consumer and entrepreneur within virtual worlds.
As virtual economies grow, there have been instances of fraud in these virtual worlds. PIAC’s report studies examples of economic fraud conducted in virtual worlds such as Second Life, Entropia Universe, EVE Online, and World of Warcraft. For example, there have been cases of bank runs, securities fraud, and theft of virtual property. These situations have resulted in a financial loss to consumers in virtual worlds. Notably, virtual world operators in most cases stated that these fraudulent schemes are “part of the game” while denying responsibility and liability and refusing to compensate players who have lost money to fraud in virtual worlds. Efforts to set up in-world justice systems have not been successful.
“Where a consumer falls victim to fraudulent activity within a virtual world, they are not likely to be successful in seeking redress or compensation for their losses,” said Janet Lo, Legal Counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and author of the report. “Virtual world consumers must be aware of potential risks to their in-world assets and property, such as in-world fraudulent schemes or unilateral actions by virtual world operators dealing with user accounts.”
Given that individuals view their virtual world avatar as an extension of themselves, the report explored whether real-world rights should extend to the avatar and whether traditional notions of property rights and consumer protection should apply to virtual avatars participating in virtual economies. The report noted the use of End-User License Agreements (EULA) or Terms of Service by virtual world operators to limit their liability and stipulate certain mandatory forms of dispute resolution. The enforceability of these terms in real world courts have been questioned but real world case law has not yet clarified the legal status and rights of virtual world users.
The report notes that real-world regulators around the world continue to examine virtual world economies and contemplate whether real-world regulation should be applied to financial transactions conducted in-world. For example, securities and payment regulations could be applied with a view to providing greater consumer protection to virtual world users.
“As virtual world experiences blend into social networking websites and other areas of commerce, regulators will need to consider how consumer protection will operate and whether the application of real-world regulations will be sufficient to protect consumers,” said Lo.
 

thumb_pdfThe Executive Summary of Virtual Worlds
Download File: Executive Summary English[size: 0.02 mb]

thumb_pdf
Sommaire Français
Download File:Virtual Worlds Sommaire Francais[size: 0.03 mb]

thumb_pdf
The complete Virtual Worlds report is available here
Download File: Virtual Worlds FINAL for website[size: 1.36 mb]

 
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations. The views expressed in thereport are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information, please contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nichloas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)