PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-012: Customer gets signed up for retailer credit card without his consent
An individual complained after receiving a credit card he did not apply for, following an interaction with a salesperson for a loyalty program. He alleged that he never consented to a credit card application or a credit check, and that much of the information on the application was inaccurate. The bank claimed the individual knowingly provided his information and consented via an electronic tablet. The OPC found that the bank failed to demonstrate it obtained the complainant's consent and ensure the accuracy of the collected information. The investigation concluded the bank contravened PIPEDA Principles 4.3 (consent), 4.6 (accuracy), and 4.1.4 (accountability). The bank apologized, cancelled the card, and removed the inquiry from the credit report. It also discontinued its in-store pilot program and committed to implementing measures to ensure proper consent and information accuracy if it relaunches such a program.
- 1Whether the bank obtained valid consent for a credit card application and credit check under Principle 4.3
- 2Whether the bank ensured the accuracy of personal information collected under Principle 4.6
- 3Whether the bank had adequate procedures to give effect to PIPEDA principles under Principle 4.1.4
- Consent for credit card: Bank failed to demonstrate consent
- Accuracy of information: Bank failed to ensure accuracy
- PIPEDA Principle 4.3: Bank contravened principle
- PIPEDA Principle 4.6: Bank contravened principle
- PIPEDA Principle 4.1.4: Bank contravened principle
- Remedial action: Bank cancelled card and removed credit inquiry
- Program discontinuation: Bank discontinued in-store pilot program
Complaint well-founded and resolved
The OPC found that the bank could not demonstrate that the complainant saw the tablet screen, provided all the information, understood the purpose of collection, or clicked the consent box. This led to findings of contravention regarding consent, accuracy, and accountability.
The bank apologized to the complainant, cancelled the credit card, asked the credit reporting agency to remove the account and inquiry from the complainant’s file, discontinued its in-store pilot program, and pledged to implement measures to ensure proper client review of applications and consent if the program is relaunched.
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.6 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.1.4 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