Executive Summary: Law School Admission Council Investigation
A complainant objected to the Law School Admission Council's (LSAC) requirement for Canadian students to provide fingerprints to write the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). LSAC, a US-based non-profit, argued it was outside PIPEDA's jurisdiction and its activities were educational. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found sufficient links to Canada for PIPEDA to apply and determined LSAC's activities were administrative, not educational. Applying a four-part test, the Assistant Commissioner found fingerprinting was not demonstrably necessary, effective, or proportional, and less privacy-invasive alternatives existed. LSAC agreed to cease fingerprint collection but reserved the right to reinstate it, proposing photographic evidence instead. The Assistant Commissioner found the complaint well-founded due to the disproportionate nature of fingerprint collection and LSAC's reservation to reinstate the policy.
- 1Whether LSAC's activities fall within the scope of PIPEDA despite its non-profit status and US location
- 2Whether LSAC's activities are educational in nature or serve administrative needs
- 3Whether the collection of thumbprints is demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need
- 4Whether the collection of thumbprints is likely to be effective in meeting that need
- 5Whether the loss of privacy from thumbprint collection is proportional to the benefit gained
- 6Whether there is a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end as thumbprint collection
- 7Whether the collection of photographs as an alternative is acceptable under PIPEDA
- 8Whether LSAC's reservation of the right to reinstate its fingerprint policy is compliant with PIPEDA
- Jurisdiction: PIPEDA applies to LSAC
- Nature of activities: Activities deemed administrative, not educational
- Necessity of collection: Fingerprinting not demonstrably necessary
- Effectiveness of collection: Fingerprinting not demonstrably effective
- Proportionality of collection: Fingerprinting not proportional
- Alternatives to collection: Less privacy-invasive alternatives exist
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded
Complaint well-founded — corrective measures recommended
The Assistant Commissioner found that fingerprint collection was not necessary, effective, or proportional to its stated purpose, and LSAC's reservation to reinstate the policy indicated an ongoing potential for non-compliance. The collection of fingerprints was deemed to be beyond what was required and not limited to what was necessary.
The Assistant Commissioner recommended that LSAC permanently cease its collection of thumbprints from students in Canada and limit the retention of independent photographs to five years if it continued to collect them.
- Principle 4.1 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3 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