OTTAWA, April 24, 2023 – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) reacted negatively to the announcement made today by the Minister of Transportation, Omar Alghabra, of proposed changes to the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPRs), saying the proposals weaken passengers’ rights by making their claims secret, blocking their access to full justice, and failing to remove airlines’ ability to claim routine safety exceptions to payment of claims, among other shortcomings.

“The Minister did not consult with Canadian consumers or air passenger protection advocates before proposing these ill-advised changes – so we won’t clear them for takeoff,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel at PIAC. “Consumers shouldn’t support them either, because they will also give the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) too much discretion to determine new exceptions to passengers’ compensation claims and to change the claims process with administrative ‘guidelines’, and also the CTA may now allow air carriers caught breaking the rules to avoid fines by entering into compliance agreements,” he added.

The changes to the APPRs are found in the Government’s omnibus Budget Implementation Act bill, in Division 23. Such changes are often given little scrutiny in Parliamentary Committees due to the urgency of Budget implementation and the large size of Budget bills.  Therefore PIAC called upon the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN) to study the Budget Implementation Act Bill and to recommend major amendments, or, simply the remove the Minister’s proposed APPR changes from the Bill.

“We are disappointed the Government did not see fit to simply pass Bill C-327, ‘An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (air passenger protection)’, introduced by MP Taylor Bachrach,” added Lawford. “That Bill would change Canada’s air passenger protection law to mirror that in Europe, which is the gold standard.”

For more information please contact:

John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ×125
jlawford@piac.ca
https://www.piac.ca/

social: @CanadaPIAC

— 30 —

The post Changes to Air Passenger Protection Rules weaken consumers’ rights: not cleared for takeoff appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

The post PIAC Supports Keep Me Posted, a Campaign for Protecting the Consumers’ Right to Choose Paper or Digital Communications appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

The post PIAC Challenges CRTC Advice Regarding Device Unlocking appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

• 90% of respondents said they were confident they would be able to resolve a problem with a retailer located in the same province, and
• 74% with a retailer located in another province,

only:

• 52% were confident they could resolve a problem with a retailer located in the U.S., and
• 23% with a retailer located outside Canada or the U.S.

Canadian consumers also had more trouble understanding information related to their purchase when retailers were located in another country, as opposed to in Canada. While 82% of respondents found information related to the total price of a product, applicable taxes, shipping costs and customs charges “very” or “somewhat” clear when the retailer was located in Canada, only about 63% found this information clear when the retailer was located in another country.
Finally, consumers were unsure about the laws which would apply if they encountered a problem with an online purchase made from a retailer located outside Canada. About 45% were not sure, while 18% of respondents said the laws in their province should apply and 35% said the law in the retailer’s jurisdiction should apply. While a smaller percentage of frequent online shoppers were unsure about which laws would apply (25%), 51% thought the laws of their province would apply.
This data leads to at least two key conclusions: (1) consumers feel less confident in their ability to resolve an online purchase dispute with a retailer located in another country, and (2) where they may wish to resolve a dispute, they find it more difficult to understand information provided by international retailers, as well as the laws which should apply. This is a double whammy which places consumers seeking remedies for an online purchase at a disadvantage. The additional requirement imposed by a forum selection clause to bring legal action in the retailer’s own jurisdiction, therefore, makes it a triple. As written by Sebastian in PIAC’s report, No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: Consumer Contracts and “Free” Services:

While there are legitimate interests on both sides of this issue, the problem is that this is yet another area where consumers lose out to business interests. A consumer lawsuit against a large corporation is already fought on uneven grounds, as a corporation would have significantly more resources at its disposal than an individual. With the imposition of a forum selection clause, consumers are forced to file their dispute on a corporation’s ‘legal home ground’, creating significant advantages for the corporation and significant inconvenience for the consumer. This inconvenience can easily rise to such a level that it deters consumers from bringing an action at all.[1]

In Douez, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada appears to be finally willing to take a hard look at the fairness and enforceability of online consumer contracts. While the two concurring judgments, penned by Justices Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon on the one hand and Justice Abella on the other, differed on the legal analysis required to find “strong cause” that Facebook’s forum selection clause should not be enforced, they acknowledged similar policy concerns with online consumer contracts and the unequal bargaining power between consumers and corporations. Justices Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon write, for instance:

A court has discretion under the strong cause test to deny the enforcement of a contract for reasons of public policy in appropriate circumstances. Generally, such limitations fall into two broad categories: those intended to protect a weaker party or those intended to protect “the social, economic, or political policies of the enacting state in the collective interest”… In this case, both of these categories are implicated. It raises both the reality of unequal bargaining power in consumer contracts of adhesion and the local court’s interest in adjudicating claims involving constitutional or quasi-constitutional rights.

[…]

Relatedly, individual consumers in this context are faced with little choice but to accept Facebook’s terms of use. Facebook asserts that Ms. Douez could have simply rejected Facebook’s terms. But as the academic commentary makes clear, in today’s digital marketplace, transactions between businesses and consumers are generally covered by non-negotiable standard form contracts presented to consumers on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis…[2]

Justice Abella also writes:

… it is important to put this forum selection clause in its contractual context. We are dealing here with an online consumer contract of adhesion. Unlike Pompey, there is virtually no opportunity on the part of the consumer to negotiate the terms of the clause. To become a member of Facebook, one must accept all the terms stipulated in the terms of use. No bargaining, no choice, no adjustments. Online contracts such as the one in this case put traditional contract principles to the test. What does “consent” mean when the agreement is said to be made by pressing a computer key? Can it realistically be said that the consumer turned his or her mind to all the terms and gave meaningful consent?[3]

Both sets of reasons also recognize the quasi-constitutional nature of privacy rights provided in British Columbia’s Privacy Act[4] and at stake in Ms. Douez’s case, particularly should Ms. Douez be required to litigate those rights in California.[5]
The dissent, written by Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Côté, whose legal analysis leads to a different conclusion, focuses on the certainty and predictability provided by forum selection clauses. They write, “Forum selection clauses provide certainty and predictability in cross-border transactions. When parties agree to a jurisdiction for the resolution of disputes, courts will give effect to that agreement, unless the claimant establishes “strong cause” for not doing so.”[6] The dissent, therefore, would have upheld the forum selection clause against Ms. Douez.
The question the dissent appears to stop short of asking, however, is: certainty for whom? The dissent’s hypothetical response to this question appears to emerge later in their reasons when they write:

It is not only large multi-national corporations like Facebook that benefit from emphasizing the need for order in private international law. The intervener, Information Technology Association of Canada, points out that small and medium-sized businesses benefit from the certainty that flows from enforcing forum selection clauses, and that by reducing litigation risk they can generate savings that can be passed on to consumers. Facebook adds that the certainty which comes with enforcement of forum selection clauses allows foreign companies to offer online access to Canadians. In our view, these benefits accrue to online businesses of all sizes, and in all locations.[7]

In other words, forum selection clauses primarily provide certainty and predictability for businesses. Where an online contract is formed between two businesses which truly “agree” on a jurisdiction for dispute resolution, these clauses do provide predictability for both parties. However, in the context of a consumer contract, particularly given the substantial academic research on the average consumer’s ability to read and understand online contracts, forum selection clauses chosen by businesses will tend to increase certainty for the corporation and conversely decrease certainty for the consumer. Therefore, while a corporation is provided certainty that legal proceedings against it will be brought in its home jurisdiction, consumers – who may complete numerous online transactions in one day – are left to grapple with multiple online contracts specifying forums for litigation which may be scattered across the world. Forum selection clauses provide certainty for businesses, not for consumers.
What does the Supreme Court decision mean for consumers? Seen on its own, the Court’s judgment in Douez may have little direct impact on consumers generally (although it certainly makes a difference for Ms. Douez and the other class action members). However, the hope among consumer advocates is that this decision will be a signal to Canadian courts, policy makers, and corporations to scrutinize and consider major changes that are needed to drafting, presenting and enforcing online consumer contracts. While certain elements of standard form contracts may linger for the purposes of efficiency and ease-of-use, significant work remains to be done with respect to the substance, language, structure, presentation, and consumer awareness and understanding of online contracts. Forum selection clauses in online consumer agreements, for instance, inherently tend to favour corporations and place the greater burden on consumers. They provide little benefit in the consumer context.
Consumers are not let off the hook, however. We encourage consumers to continue to review online contracts to the best of their ability, although they admittedly have little choice to reject or amend them. Some product and service providers now summarize the key terms of a contract or underline and emphasize certain provisions. Consumers should pay attention to these.
Meanwhile, PIAC will continue to play its part in advocating for consumer protections and adequate online privacy safeguards for all Canadian consumers. In the digital age, if left unresolved, the enforceability of consumer contracts will only become a growing and increasingly complex problem.
 
[1] Kent Sebastian, No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: Consumer Contracts and “Free” Services (Ottawa: Public Interest Advocacy Centre, 2014) at 37.
[2] Douez v Facebook, Inc, 2017 SCC 33 at paras 52 and 55. [Douez v Facebook]
[3] Ibid at paras 98-99.
[4] SBC 1996, c 373.
[5] See, for instance: Douez v Facebook at paras 59 and 105.
[6] Douez v Facebook at para 124.
[7] Ibid at para 160.

The post Douez v. Facebook: Are courts finally tuning into the reality of consumer contracts? appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

PIAC Calls for an Airline Code and an Air Passenger Complaints Commissioner

However, it is clear this is no longer enough. Canadians need a single standardized set of air passenger rules so they know they are entitled to certain rights in situations where a flying experience does not go smoothly. In 2015, PIAC prepared a report on Consumer Protections for Airline Passengers for the Canada Transportation Act Review Secretariat recommending the creation of an Airline Code and an Air Passenger Complaints Commissioner in order to protect air travel consumers. The Airline Code could include rules on flight delays and cancellations, delayed or lost baggage, overbooking and child passengers. The #UnitedAirlines incident shows what can go terribly wrong when airlines have full discretion to decide how their customers can be treated. All parties, both air carriers and consumers alike, could use a little air traffic control on these issues.

Transport Minister Confirms a Code is Coming – Hold Him to It

On Tuesday, Transport Minister Marc Garneau confirmed the Canadian federal government will introduce new legislation this spring, and the new “air passenger bill of rights” will address situations such as flight bumping. In PIAC’s view, this is the right step for Canadian airline consumers; a mandatory code of air travel rules could not come any sooner. PIAC will be watching for the new rules and advocating for your consumer rights and protections in air travel. We encourage you to contact your local Member of Parliament (M.P.) and the Transport Minister if air travel rights are important to you too.

PIAC believes additional clarity for air passengers is on the horizon. If air travel rights are important to you as well, contact your M.P. or write the Minister of Transport to let them know. (Photo courtesy of Pixabay)

The post #UnitedAirlines: Why Canada Needs Air Passenger Protection Rules Today appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

Recently, I took the plunge—I switched internet service providers. Although the switching process itself was as smooth as I could have asked for, the inertia and personal resistance to switching I experienced took me by surprise.
I had been with a major Canadian telecommunications provider for several years and had thought about switching for a good number of them. I knew I could probably get a “better deal” with another provider, had suffered very hostile conversations with customer service, and didn’t necessarily agree with the ethos of the company. All good reasons, right? Yet, every time I called, I got talked out of cancelling at that moment. Every single time. So far I have internet access that works, who knows what could happen if I tried to switch? Could I experience an internet blackout for weeks? Why rock the boat? “I’ll do it another time,” I told myself.
Then, a significant event happened earlier this year which highlighted once and for all that my provider wasn’t for me. I could not risk calling customer service to be talked out of my decision again. So, I decided the only way I could definitively switch was by subscribing to a new provider first before breaking up with my old one. It still wasn’t easy. In fact, as hard as it is to admit, I had filled out all my information with my new provider, before quitting the form at the last minute rather than sending it in. Then I told myself to get a grip, manually completed the entire form again, and hit submit.
That was, in effect, the hardest part. As a visit from the technician was scheduled, I called my old provider and spent half an hour trying to cancel as they clung on to me in every possible way: “Is your new internet installed yet?” “Can you cancel your new order?” “Is the technician on their way right now?” “You could get a refund.” “There is still time!” I resisted the entreaties not because I didn’t feel myself becoming slowly entrapped in the spinning thread of appeals and petitions, but because I couldn’t. I was already gone.

—

I have been struck by comments made by high-profile regulators – institutions created to protect the public interest – which have lamented that telecom consumers are in part to blame for their strife and complaints about high prices, low data caps, and throttled broadband speeds. Why don’t consumers just cancel their service and switch providers? Why don’t they try to negotiate with their service providers? Why don’t they do in-depth research into their contracts instead of relying on customer service representatives?
These statements discount an array of reasons which have formed the foundation of today’s consumer protection laws and regulations, including:

• The significant imbalance in bargaining power between companies and individual consumers;
• The traditional “take it or leave it” nature of service terms and contracts;
• The disparity in resources available to a company and to a consumer in cases where “something goes wrong” or a dispute arises;
• The complexity of the telecommunications market and the high cost of information acquisition;
• The effect of high switching costs and barriers such as bundled services and fixed-term contracts; and
• The fact that a market of goods or services rooted in the ability of a consumer to “negotiate” a better contract creates an inequitable system which vastly favours consumers who traditionally have more time, independence, income, knowledge, education, mobility, and confident language skills.

However, regardless of these reasons, and rather than going into the stormy debate about the competitiveness of Canada’s telecom market and coordinated pricing in the wireless sector, I thought I would simply share my own personal anecdote.
What did I learn? Switching is just hard. I am a consumer advocate and was as entangled in the incumbent web as anyone else. It is not merely a matter of being at the mercy of any penalties your old telecom provider may impose on you, or having to pay upfront for a new modem and installation costs, although all these things matter—inertia and fear are true consumer barriers. It’s a matter of being human, and companies know exactly how to take advantage of it.
Consumer inertia has been the study of behavioural economists, business administrators, psychologists and other researchers for decades. While various models have been created to predict consumer willingness to switch, the basic conclusions made by researchers have widely resonated with one another. Notably, following the liberalization of markets which were formerly dominated by monopolies, economists expected consumers to actively seek out and switch to the best companies. This would, in effect, theoretically lower prices and increase service quality overall. Yet, while this has happened to a certain degree, consumer behaviour has not met the original expectations of creating highly competitive markets; in fact, the majority of consumers, even when offered the option, regularly choose to stay with their incumbent provider.
While there have been several explanations for this, I will only focus on a few here.[1] To begin, the telecommunications market is unique not merely because of the fast-paced changes in technology but also because consumers must make complex decisions related to several different products and services at the same time. Thus, instead of deciding which brand of dish detergent to buy, a consumer is considering equipment, wireless modems, broadband speeds, data allowances, rental or purchase options, and so on. Moreover, a consumer must make a value judgment of a telecom service based on forecast usage even though there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the service will actually be used by the consumer or by their dependants. This is because usage of communications services is influenced by, and can vary significantly based on, circumstance, experience, relationships, and day-to-day interactions and events. Studies have shown that not only are consumers reluctant to switch, but when they do, particularly in electricity or telecom markets, they end up subscribing to “sub-optimal contracts”—many end up paying more than they need to for their actual usage.
Moreover, researchers have identified various consumer behaviours which affect willingness to switch and which are exacerbated in markets such as telecom where the “consumer surplus” – or net gains a consumer would make by switching – are difficult to visualize in the present moment. For instance, the “endowment effect” describes the phenomenon that individuals tend to value a good already owned more than the same good not yet owned. Similarly, the “loss aversion” theory arises from findings that consumers tend to assign twice as much “weight” to giving up a good than to gaining that exact same good. According to Lunn, in the telecom sector this means that “consumers may be foregoing substantial gains, because alternative providers would need to provide several times the consumer surplus of the current contract before consumers would be willing to switch.”[2] Ultimately, incumbent companies tend to have the strong brand advantage.
So, what is my message to regulators? Consumers need all the help they can get, particularly in a highly technical sector that is challenging for the average customer to understand. After you have done all that you can to empower them, then give consumers time – time to adjust, to reconsider, to adapt – and give credit to those who did make the change. When was the last time you switched your telecom provider?

—

By the way, I am now the happy customer of a small, local non-profit ISP. My monthly cost is lower, my broadband speeds and data caps are higher, and I just feel good about the provider I’m supporting. So pluck up your courage, and if you believe it’s right – make the switch. It’s worth it.
 

[1] This research is derived from a number of sources, including:

Arthur Fishman & Rafael Rob, “Consumer Inertia, Firm Growth and Industry Dynamics” (2002), PIER Working Paper 02-034, online: SSRN;

Ali Hortaçsu, Seyed Ali Madanizadeh & Steven L. Puller, “Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market” (2015), National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 20988;

Anja Lambrecht & Bernd Skiera, “Paying Too Much and Being Happy About It: Existence, Causes, and Consequences of Tariff-Choice Biases” (2006) 43 J of Marketing Research 212;

Pete Lunn, “Telecommunications Consumers: A Behavioural Economic Analysis” (2011), Working Paper No. 417, online: ESRI;

Nitin Mehta, Surendra Rajiv & Kannan Srinivasan, Active Versus Passive Loyalty: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation (2001), online;

Jeffrey T. Prince, Relating Inertia and Experience in Technology Markets: An Analysis of Households’ Personal Computer Choices (2010), online: SSRN; and

Patrick Xavier, Behavioural Economics and Customer Complaints in Communication Markets: A report prepared for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in connection with the public inquiry “Reconnecting the Customer” (Canberra: Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2011), online: ACMA.

[2] Lunn, ibid. at p. 10.

The post Switching Providers Isn’t All About Reasons: It’s Just Hard. appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

 

• The Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumers Services can be reached by clicking here.
• Here is a list of Members of Provincial Parliament

Make sure the Government of Ontario follows through on its plan to consult and to develop regulations aimed at protecting consumers’ loyalty points.
 
Jonathan Bishop has been a Research Analyst with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) since 2012. He is the author of PIAC’s 2013 study of customer loyalty programs in Canada entitled, “Customer Loyalty Programs: Are Rules Needed? The report noted consumers have little recourse when loyalty program providers unilaterally decide to devalue their loyalty currency, or change other terms and conditions of loyalty programs. PIAC advocated for industry-wide guidelines relating to loyalty currency devaluation, transfers and bequeathal. Moreover, the report called for the creation of a complaints body for consumers on issues that arise relating to the operation of loyalty programs, as well as guidelines for the notice given to changes in loyalty program terms and conditions.

The post Next Steps on the Loyalty Points Story appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

Smart Regulation Will Need Public Input To Succeed

Smart Regulation, a new strategy for regulation recommended by a federal government appointed committee, will need considerable checks and balances, and in particular mandated public input, in order to achieve its goals. This was the conclusion of The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, (PIAC), an Ottawa-based non-governmental organization that specializes in issues involving the regulation of important public services and utilities. PIAC was a participant in the consultations conducted by the Privy Council appointed committee, the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation, that today issued its final report.
Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of PIAC noted, “PIAC is heartened that the Committee rejected a strategy of deregulation and rather stressed reform to provide regulation that is accountable for its results”. Nevertheless, Janigan said that the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee will require vigilance to ensure that the appropriate public goals of consumer protection and public health and safety are maintained. “We support the observations and recommendation of the Committee that suggests the involvement of engaged Canadian citizenry on a level playing field with government and the regulated parties will be required.”
PIAC also cautioned that the suggested harmonization with regulatory standards of major international trading partners must never become a “race to the bottom” – in other words, common adoption of the lowest possible standard. “Canada must demonstrate leadership in issues involving health, environmental protection and consumer safeguards and attempt to develop sustainable commerce on a basis that is in keeping with Canadian values”, Janigan added.
PIAC hopes to be able to play a role in any future implementation of the EACSR report.
For more information please contact:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 26
mjanigan@piac.ca

The post Smart Regulation Will Need Public Input To Succeed appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

A new study released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) highlights problems with consumer protection for customers of internet services. According to Michael Janigan, PIAC Executive Director and General Counsel, “Canadian internet customers are not being well served by the current hands-off approach to regulation of the Internet”. Janigan also noted “Our survey found that almost two thirds of consumers think that the government should develop and enforce consumer protection rules. In particular, sixty-two percent of customers thought it was very important for the government to develop rules with respect to quality of service.”
PIAC’s study, conducted with the financial assistance of Industry Canada, reviewed the current mechanisms for self regulation and the handling of customer complaints and found them wanting. Currently consumer problems such as spam, service outages and delays, and billing complaints are handled by individual internet service providers (ISPs) in ways which are frequently not transparent or standardized. ISP practices may create an imbalance in service arrangements to the customer’s disadvantage. The PIAC report also warns that the high level of concentration in the high speed Internet market, dominated by two suppliers cable and local telephone companies, bodes ill for future internet consumer welfare.
The report recommends action first by the ISPs themselves to more effectively deal with consumer problems by implementing more effective self regulation through a number of models currently available. Failing such initiative, the report finds public support for appropriate regulatory intervention.
For more information please contact:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 26
mjanigan@piac.ca
You may download this publication free of charge from our web-site www.piac.ca or if you prefer a hard copy please contact our office at (613) 562-4002 or at piac@piac.ca and we will send you a copy for a charge of $10.00 plus postage which will cover our publication costs.
 

The post Canadians Want Increased Consumer Protection For Internet Services – Media Release appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

Consumers International, a global organization representing consumer groups worldwide, today called upon governments to take measures to protect consumer’s rights to information, privacy, security and redress in the context of electronic commerce.
“We welcome the OECD’s commitment to develop consumer protection guidelines for the electronic world”, said Louise Sylvan, Vice-President of Consumers International, and CEO of the Australian Consumers’ Association. “However, guidelines are not enough. Online businesses must be legally obliged to respect basic consumer rights just as other businesses are, and online consumers must have effective recourse in the event that they are wronged.”
Consumers International, together with a number of its member groups, is participating at this week’s OECD Conference on Electronic Commerce being held in Ottawa, Canada. While delegates to the conference are largely from the government and business sectors, this is the first time that consumer groups have been invited to participate fully in an OECD Ministerial conference.
“We hope that this is the beginning of a new trend”, said Ms. Sylvan. “Consumer concerns must be front and central in any policy-making exercise involving business-consumer transactions. You can’t have much commerce without consumers.”
Under the leadership of Consumers International, consumer groups from all over the world are calling for strong privacy protection laws, which:

1. limit the collection of personal information to that which is necessary for the transaction;
2. give consumers control over the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information;
3. allows consumers to access and correct information about them held by business;
4. provide for proactive oversight by an independent body; and
5. provide redress to those consumers whose rights have been violated.

Consumer groups also point out that the security of Internet transactions must be improved before consumers will place their trust in cyberspace.
“If it’s illegal to spy on someone physically; it should be illegal to spy on them electronically”, said Jim Savary, representing the Consumers’ Association of Canada.
Consumers International also called on the OECD countries to expand and strengthen their existing consumer protection laws so as to address problems that consumers experience when shopping online. “We encourage industry to adopt model contracts and dispute resolution processes, in cooperation with consumer groups”, stated Ms. Sylvan. “But in the end, there must be accountability to consumers, through their governments. Voluntary codes have a place, and they need to be backed up with effective government regulation and enforcement.”
In particular, consumer representatives cite the need for:

1. minimum standards for consumer information, so that online shoppers know who they are dealing with, where the vendor is located, and what exactly they are agreeing to;
2. clear rules regarding what constitutes a consumer’s acceptance of an online contract, including a triple-click confirmation requirement;
3. an easy way for consumers to cancel an order that they didn’t mean to make;
4. reliable authentication mechanisms to protect consumers from impersonation online;
5. laws limiting consumer liability in the event of unauthorized transactions;
6. rules which require payment system operators (such as credit card companies) to reverse consumer transactions which were never authorized, or where the consumer did not receive what they paid for;
7. effective complaint and dispute resolution procedures for consumers, both within organizations and outside them;
8. consumer recourse to the laws and courts of their home country, in the event of unresolved disputes with foreign vendors; and
9. cooperation among governments in the recognition and enforcement of each other’s court judgements with respect to international consumer transactions;

While focusing on the need for government action, consumer groups say that they will be working together internationally to monitor online business practices, to provide tools for consumers to make informed decisions, and to help business adopt appropriate practices in electronic commerce.
Apart from issues of consumer protection, Consumers International stressed the critical need to expand access to the Internet to all members of society. “Electronic commerce should benefit everyone, not just the already privileged”, she remarked. However, Ms. Sylvan cautioned that the promotion of electronic commerce over other more traditional forms of business could have long term effects on the marketplace – such as increased concentration of ownership – that are not in the public interest.
Consumer representatives will be available for comment at 5:00 pm, on Wednesday October 7th, in the Ballroom of the Radisson Hotel, 100 Kent St., Ottawa.
For more information, contact (in Ottawa):
Louise Sylvan, Consumers International – Westin Hotel (613) 560-7000
Jim Savary, Consumers’ Association of Canada – Sheraton Hotel (613) 232-1500
Bjorn Erik Thon, Consumer Council of Norway – Radisson Hotel (613) 238-1122
Nathalie St. Pierre or Marie Vallée, Fédération Nationale des Associations de Consommateurs du Québec – Les Suites (613) 232-2000
 

The post Consumers Call for Legislated Protections appeared first on Public Interest Advocacy Centre.