The catalogueFederal (Canada)
Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

Browse privacy decisions from Federal (Canada) — each with an AI-generated plain-language summary for every ruling.

2 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Federal (Canada) flag
Apr 22, 2014Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-007Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-007 : Apple called upon to be more open about its collection and use of information for downloads

Apple Canada Inc.

An individual complained that Apple unnecessarily required payment information and date of birth to download free applications. The OPC found that Apple's privacy policy did not fully identify the purposes for collecting date of birth for authentication, leading to a well-founded and conditionally resolved finding after Apple agreed to revise its policy. Regarding payment information, the OPC determined that Apple did not make instructions for downloading free apps without providing payment details clearly accessible. This aspect was also found to be well-founded, and Apple agreed to implement a clear option for users to proceed without supplying payment information at registration. The OPC was pleased with Apple's commitment to address the issues.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-007 : Apple called upon to be more open about its collection and use of information for downloads

Apr 22, 2014Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-007
Adjudicator: Chantal Bernier
Plain-Language Summary

An individual complained that Apple unnecessarily required payment information and date of birth to download free applications. The OPC found that Apple's privacy policy did not fully identify the purposes for collecting date of birth for authentication, leading to a well-founded and conditionally resolved finding after Apple agreed to revise its policy. Regarding payment information, the OPC determined that Apple did not make instructions for downloading free apps without providing payment details clearly accessible. This aspect was also found to be well-founded, and Apple agreed to implement a clear option for users to proceed without supplying payment information at registration. The OPC was pleased with Apple's commitment to address the issues.

Key Issues
  • Whether Apple's privacy policy adequately identified the purposes for collecting date of birth information for authentication (Principle 4.2 PIPEDA)
  • Whether Apple's collection of date of birth was limited to what was necessary for identified purposes (Principle 4.4 PIPEDA)
  • Whether Apple made information about its policies and practices concerning the collection of credit card information readily available to individuals (Principle 4.8 PIPEDA)
  • Whether Apple's practices resulted in the over-collection of sensitive payment information (Principle 4.4 PIPEDA)
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Federal (Canada) flag
Jan 14, 2014Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings #2014-001Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings #2014-001: Use of sensitive health information for targeting of Google ads raises privacy concerns

Google Inc.

A complainant alleged that Google's AdSense service displayed targeted advertisements for sleep apnea devices on unrelated websites after he searched for medical devices online. He viewed his online activities related to sleep apnea as sensitive information requiring express consent for targeted advertising. The OPC's technical analysis confirmed that Google was delivering these ads through online behavioural advertising (OBA) and that they persisted over time. Google initially attributed this to a technical issue but later confirmed it was due to 'remarketed ads,' a form of interest-based advertising. The OPC found that Google's practice of delivering tailored ads based on sensitive health information without express consent contravened PIPEDA Principles 4.3 and 4.3.6. Google committed to several remedial measures, including rejecting relevant remarketing campaigns, revising its policies, developing new internal training, and increasing monitoring.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings #2014-001: Use of sensitive health information for targeting of Google ads raises privacy concerns

Jan 14, 2014Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings #2014-001
Adjudicator: Chantal Bernier
Plain-Language Summary

A complainant alleged that Google's AdSense service displayed targeted advertisements for sleep apnea devices on unrelated websites after he searched for medical devices online. He viewed his online activities related to sleep apnea as sensitive information requiring express consent for targeted advertising. The OPC's technical analysis confirmed that Google was delivering these ads through online behavioural advertising (OBA) and that they persisted over time. Google initially attributed this to a technical issue but later confirmed it was due to 'remarketed ads,' a form of interest-based advertising. The OPC found that Google's practice of delivering tailored ads based on sensitive health information without express consent contravened PIPEDA Principles 4.3 and 4.3.6. Google committed to several remedial measures, including rejecting relevant remarketing campaigns, revising its policies, developing new internal training, and increasing monitoring.

Key Issues
  • Whether the delivery of targeted advertisements based on online searches for medical devices constitutes online behavioural advertising (OBA)
  • Whether information related to online searches for medical devices is sensitive personal information
  • Whether express consent is required for the collection and use of sensitive personal health information for OBA purposes
  • Whether Google obtained appropriate consent under Principle 4.3 and 4.3.6 for the use of sensitive health information for targeted advertising
  • Whether Google's privacy policy accurately reflected its practices regarding sensitive categories in tailored ads
  • Whether Google's monitoring tools for preventing policy abuses were scalable and effective