PIPEDA Case Summary #2003-244 — Telecommunications company "A"
An individual complained that a telecommunications company failed to obtain proper consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes. The complainant alleged that the company did not adequately inform customers of these practices or provide an easy opt-out mechanism. The investigation found that while the company had a privacy policy available online and in booklets, it did not actively bring these practices to the attention of new customers during the service application process. The Assistant Commissioner determined that the company's practices did not meet the reasonable expectations of its customers and thus contravened several PIPEDA principles. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the company draw customers' attention to its privacy policy and options at the time of collection.
- 1Whether the telecommunications company obtained adequate knowledge and consent for secondary marketing purposes under Principle 4.3
- 2Whether the company specified identified purposes at or before the time of collection under Principle 4.2.3
- 3Whether the company made reasonable efforts to ensure individuals were advised of the purposes for which information would be used, as required by Principle 4.3.2
- 4Whether the company's consent practices met the reasonable expectations of the individual under Principle 4.3.5
- Consent for marketing: Company failed to obtain proper consent
- Information provision: Company did not adequately inform customers
- Opt-out mechanism: Company did not provide easy opt-out
- PIPEDA contravention: Company practices contravened PIPEDA principles
- Complaint outcome: Complaint found well-founded
- Recommendation: Company recommended to improve information provision
Complaint well-founded — corrective measures recommended
The Assistant Commissioner found that the company did not make reasonable efforts to advise customers of its data use for secondary marketing, failing to draw attention to its privacy practices during the subscription process and making privacy information difficult to find in its documents. This contravened Principles 4.2.3, 4.3.2, and 4.3.5, leading to a contravention of Principle 4.3.
The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the company draw the customer's attention to its policy statement of the purposes for which personal information is collected, and of the customer's options, at the time of collecting personal information during a subscription or purchasing process.
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.2.3 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.2 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.4 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.5 PIPEDA
This summary is informational only and not legal advice.
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable
Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.
Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).
Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.
Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.
Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.
Upgrade to Pro