Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)PIPEDA Findings #2020-002
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

PIPEDA Findings #2020-002: Health practitioner ratings site ceases charging for rating takedowns, a PIPEDA “no-go-zone”

Organization: RateMDs.comComplainant: A dentist practicing in British Columbia
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

A dentist complained that RateMDs.com, a health practitioner ratings website, used her personal information without consent, contravening PIPEDA Principle 4.3. The complaint concerned both her business contact information and user-generated reviews and ratings about her practice. The OPC found that the business contact information was publicly available, thus not requiring consent for its collection, use, and disclosure. Regarding the reviews, the OPC acknowledged they were personal information for both the dentist and the reviewers, requiring a balancing of interests, and concluded that the public interest in informing patient decisions outweighed the dentist's lack of consent, deeming this aspect not well-founded. However, RateMDs' explanation of its accuracy and correction policies was found to lack clarity, contravening the Openness Principle, which RateMDs resolved by updating its terms. Crucially, the OPC found RateMDs' "pay-for-takedown" service, which allowed subscribers to hide negative reviews for a fee, to be an inappropriate practice under s.5(3) of PIPEDA, a "no-go zone." RateMDs agreed to cease offering this feature, leading to a conditionally resolved finding for this issue.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether RateMDs collected, used, or disclosed the complainant's business contact information without consent (Principle 4.3)
  2. 2Whether the business contact information exemption under s.4.01 of PIPEDA applied to RateMDs' use of the complainant's business contact information
  3. 3Whether the complainant's business contact information was publicly available under s.7(1)(d), 7(2)(c.1), and 7(3)(h.1) of PIPEDA and its Regulations
  4. 4Whether the reviews and ratings posted on RateMDs constituted the complainant's personal information
  5. 5Whether the reviews and ratings also constituted the personal information of the users who posted them
  6. 6Whether RateMDs required the complainant's consent to publish the reviews and ratings about her (Principle 4.3)
  7. 7Whether a balancing of interests was required when the privacy rights of multiple individuals conflicted regarding the same personal information
  8. 8Whether RateMDs ensured the accuracy of information and provided a fair and accessible process for health professionals to challenge and correct inaccurate information (Principle 4.6, 4.9.5)
  9. 9Whether RateMDs made readily available specific information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information, particularly regarding review removal and correction (Principle 4.8)
  10. 10Whether RateMDs' "pay-for-takedown" service, allowing subscribers to hide negative reviews for a fee, constituted an appropriate purpose for collecting, using, or disclosing personal information under s.5(3) of PIPEDA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Both, in part
  • Business contact info: Collection without consent upheld
  • User-generated reviews: Collection without consent upheld
  • Openness Principle: Violation found and resolved
  • Pay-for-takedown service: Violation found and resolved
Outcome

Complaint not well-founded in part, well-founded and resolved in part, and well-founded and conditionally resolved in part

Reasoning

The OPC found that the complainant's business contact information was publicly available and that the public interest in reviews outweighed the lack of consent for their publication. However, RateMDs contravened the Openness Principle by not clearly explaining its correction policies, which it resolved, and contravened s.5(3) by offering a 'pay-for-takedown' service, which it agreed to cease.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Recommended action / remedy

RateMDs updated its Terms of Use and FAQs to clarify its review removal and correction policy and ceased offering its 'pay-for-takedown' feature.

Statutes considered
  • Principle 4.3 Schedule 1 PIPEDA
  • s.4.01 PIPEDA
  • s.7(1)(d) PIPEDA
  • s.7(2)(c.1) PIPEDA
  • s.7(3)(h.1) PIPEDA
  • Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information s.1(a)
  • Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information s.1(b)
  • Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information s.1(c)
  • s.2(1) PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.6 Schedule 1 PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.6.1 Schedule 1 PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.9.5 Schedule 1 PIPEDA
  • s.9(1) PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.8 Schedule 1 PIPEDA
  • s.5(3) PIPEDA

This summary is informational only and not legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
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