#12 — A department store
An individual complained that a department store disclosed his personal information to a third party, a credit monitoring service, after he had requested that his information not be shared. The complainant received a mail solicitation that appeared to be supported by the department store but sent by the third party. The investigation found that the department store had not disclosed the complainant's personal information; rather, the store conducted the mail-out on behalf of the third party. The store acknowledged that the mail-out should have been clearer about its role and apologized. The store also agreed to review its account application policies to allow new customers to opt out at enrolment and to improve its suppression mechanisms. The complaint was settled during the investigation.
- 1Whether the department store disclosed personal information to a third party without consent
- 2Whether the mail-out clearly indicated the department store's role
- 3Whether the department store's opt-out mechanisms were adequate
- Disclosure of personal information: No disclosure by institution found
- Clarity of mail-out: Institution acknowledged lack of clarity
- Opt-out at enrolment: Institution agreed to review policies
- Suppression mechanisms: Institution agreed to improve mechanisms
- Complaint status: Complaint settled
Complaint settled
The investigation established that no personal information was disclosed to the third party, and the department store took steps to clarify its practices and improve its opt-out and suppression mechanisms, leading to a settlement.
The department store agreed that the mail-out should have clearly indicated that the store was acting on the third party’s behalf, apologized to the complainant, and committed to reviewing its account application policies to allow new customers to opt out at enrolment and to improve its suppression mechanisms.
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