
PIPEDA Findings #2022-003: Telecommunications firm failed to obtain appropriate consent for voiceprint authentication program
The complainant alleged that Rogers Communications Inc. improperly enrolled her in its Voice ID voiceprint authentication program without her consent and failed to allow her to opt out or delete her voiceprint. Rogers utilized a passive voiceprinting technology, "tuning," to create algorithmic voiceprints for customer authentication and fraud prevention. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) found Rogers' purpose for collecting voiceprints to be appropriate, concluding this aspect of the complaint was not well-founded. However, the OPC determined that Rogers failed to obtain valid and meaningful express consent for the collection of sensitive biometric voiceprints, both during the "tuning" process and enrolment, as customers would not reasonably expect this. Furthermore, Rogers did not provide a clearly explained and easily accessible option for individuals to opt out and improperly retained voiceprints of opted-out individuals without any actual purpose. The OPC also identified deficiencies in Rogers' training materials and monitoring protocols for ensuring staff obtained valid consent. In response to OPC recommendations, Rogers committed to significant changes, including obtaining express consent before tuning, clearly informing customers of opt-out/deletion, deleting retained voiceprints, and improving training and monitoring. Consequently, the consent and retention aspects of the complaint were found to be well-founded and conditionally resolved.
- 1Whether the collection and use of voiceprints for authentication and fraud prevention constituted an appropriate purpose under PIPEDA s. 5(3)
- 2Whether Rogers obtained valid and meaningful consent for the collection of voiceprints (tuning and enrolment) under PIPEDA Principle 4.3 and s. 6.1
- 3Whether Rogers provided an adequate mechanism for the withdrawal of consent under PIPEDA Principle 4.3.8
- 4Whether Rogers' retention of voiceprints after opt-out was compliant with PIPEDA Principle 4.5.3
- 5Whether Rogers' training materials and protocols for obtaining consent were adequate
- Purpose of collection: Purpose found appropriate
- Validity of consent: Consent found invalid
- Opt-out mechanism: Opt-out mechanism found inadequate
- Retention of voiceprints: Improper retention of voiceprints
- Staff training/monitoring: Training and monitoring found deficient
Complaint well-founded and conditionally resolved regarding consent and retention; not well-founded regarding appropriate purpose.
The OPC found Rogers' purpose for the Voice ID program appropriate, but determined that Rogers failed to obtain valid express consent for collecting sensitive biometric voiceprints and improperly retained them without purpose, leading to a conditional resolution based on Rogers' commitments.
Rogers committed to obtaining express consent before voiceprint creation, clearly informing customers about opt-out and deletion, deleting previously retained voiceprints, and implementing improved training and monitoring for compliance.
- s. 5(3) PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- s. 6.1 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.8 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.5.3 PIPEDA
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute 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