PIPEDA Findings #2025-002: Investigation and recommendations concerning Google search engine service’s compliance with its obligations under PIPEDA
The OPC investigated a complaint against Google regarding its search engine displaying outdated media articles about the Complainant's HIV status and a stayed criminal charge when their name was searched. The Complainant alleged these articles caused significant harm, including physical assault and lost employment, and sought their de-listing from name-based search results. The OPC's jurisdiction over Google's search engine under PIPEDA was affirmed by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, rejecting Google's claims of non-commercial activity and journalistic exemption. The OPC found Google did not contravene Principle 4.6 (accuracy), as its responsibility was for the search results accurately reflecting linked content, not the content itself. However, the OPC concluded that Google contravened subsection 5(3) (appropriate purposes), determining that the significant harms to the Complainant's safety and dignity outweighed the limited public interest in the articles remaining linked to their name. The OPC recommended Google de-list the articles from searches for the Complainant's name, balancing privacy rights with freedom of expression. Google declined to implement this recommendation, stating it required further court guidance on the "right to de-listing" and Charter implications. Consequently, the complaint was found well-founded and unresolved regarding subsection 5(3), and not well-founded for the accuracy issue.
- 1Whether PIPEDA applies to Google's search engine service as a commercial activity within the meaning of paragraph 4(1)(a) of PIPEDA
- 2Whether the operation of Google’s search engine service is excluded from the application of Part 1 of PIPEDA by virtue of paragraph 4(2)(c) of PIPEDA because it involves the collection, use or disclosure of personal information for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes and for no other purpose
- 3Whether Google is contravening Accuracy requirements under Principle 4.6 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA by continuing to display the search results in response to searches for the Complainant’s name
- 4Whether Google is contravening subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA by continuing to display the search results in response to searches for the Complainant’s name, considering whether the purposes are appropriate in the circumstances
- 5Whether the accessibility of information in response to a search for the Complainant's name causes significant harm to the Complainant
- 6Whether the significant harm to the Complainant outweighs the public interest in the search results remaining available through Google's search engine by searching the Complainant's name
- 7Whether Google collected, used, or disclosed personal information without consent under Principles 4.3.4 and 4.3.8 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA (OPC declined to address)
- Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over Google's search engine affirmed
- Principle 4.6 (accuracy): No contravention found
- Subsection 5(3) (appropriate purposes): Contravention found
- Recommendation implementation: Recommendation declined by institution
- Complaint outcome (accuracy): Not well-founded
- Complaint outcome (appropriate purposes): Well-founded and unresolved
Complaint well-founded (unresolved) in part, not well-founded in part
The OPC found that the significant harm to the Complainant's safety and dignity from the continued display of sensitive, outdated information outweighed the limited public interest, making Google's disclosure inappropriate under s.5(3) PIPEDA. Google did not agree to implement the recommendation, leading to the 'unresolved' status.
The OPC recommended that Google de-list the media articles in question from the search results displayed in response to a search for the Complainant’s name.
- Principle 4.6 of Schedule 1 PIPEDA
- Subsection 5(3) PIPEDA
- Paragraph 4(1)(a) PIPEDA
- Paragraph 4(2)(c) PIPEDA
- Subsection 10.1(7) PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.4 of Schedule 1 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.8 of Schedule 1 PIPEDA
- Section 2(b) Charter
- Section 1 Charter
- Section 8 Charter
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