Category: Internet Law Page 3 of 4

Bill Commented On: Bill C-11, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020, 2nd Sess, 43rd Parl, 2020 (first reading 17 November 2020)

On November 17, 2020, the Federal Government unveiled the most sweeping consumer privacy law reform in the last twenty years with the proposed Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 (Bill C-11). The Act would repeal and replace parts of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 (PIPEDA) with a new private sector privacy statute, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) (not to be confused with the well-known California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA)), and would enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (Tribunal Act). The Bill makes good strides in modernizing Canada’s privacy legislation. It is also, in the end, a missed opportunity for more profound law reform.

If passed, it will necessitate modernization of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c P-6.5 (PIPA). PIPA is designated substantially similar legislation, meaning that PIPA rather than PIPEDA regulates personal information within our provincial borders (and through our ombudsman, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta). Without this designation, PIPEDA would apply to all consumer privacy transactions within Alberta. As will be detailed below, Bill C-11 fundamental revamps consumer privacy legislation and therefore unless Alberta follows suit, it is highly unlikely the substantially similar designation can be maintained.

A Right to be Forgotten Online: A Response to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner Draft Position

By Emily Laidlaw

On February 12, 2018

In Internet Law, Privacy

By: Emily Laidlaw

PDF Version: A Right to be Forgotten Online: A Response to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner Draft Position

Document Commented On: Draft OPC Position on Online Reputation

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) published its draft position on online reputation last week stating that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c-5 (PIPEDA) provides a right to de-index search results (remove a link to a webpage from search results based on a keyword search) and a right to source takedown (removal of a webpage from the host site). De-indexing and source takedown are specific ways that a person might deploy a right to be forgotten, an issue hotly debated for several years, but especially since the Court of Justice of the European Union decided Google Spain SL, Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proeccion de Datos (AEPD), Marios Costeja Gonzalez, (2014) Case C-131/12 (known as Google Spain). Scholars have already responded to the OPC, such as here, here and here. I offer a different commentary, reflecting my first critical thoughts on three key issues arising from the report: (a) the public interest test suggested by the OPC to balance freedom of expression and privacy; (b) the role of private technology companies; and (c) the blurring of the line between data protection and defamation regimes. While I will discuss source takedown briefly (and for a more thorough analysis of intermediary liability and defamation law, see my work with Dr. Hilary Young here), the focus in this post will largely be on search results.

Douez v Facebook, Inc.: Public Policy and Broad Strokes

By Jassmine Girgis

On August 2, 2017

In Contracts, Internet Law, Privacy

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Douez v Facebook, Inc.: Public Policy and Broad Strokes

Case Commented On: Douez v Facebook, Inc., 2017 SCC 33 (CanLII)

On its face, Douez v Facebook, Inc. decides the enforceability of a forum selection clause. But the Douez case also addresses public policy issues arising from consumer contracts of adhesion and the Internet era. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada used public policy principles to find the clause unenforceable.

In British Columbia, a class action was brought against Facebook, Inc. on behalf of 8.1 million people. They alleged Facebook used the names and pictures of certain members for advertising without their consent, contrary to the Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373. Facebook sought to stay the proceedings on the basis of a forum selection clause contained in its terms of use, terms to which all Facebook members must agree before they access the site. The clause requires all disputes be resolved in California, according to California law.

Pritchard v Van Nes: Imposing Liability on Perpetrator Zero of Defamatory Facebook Posts Gone Viral

By Emily Laidlaw

On May 18, 2016

In Internet Law, Torts

By: Emily Laidlaw

PDF Version: Pritchard v Van Nes: Imposing Liability on Perpetrator Zero of Defamatory Facebook Posts Gone Viral

Case Commented On: Pritchard v Van Nes, 2016 BCSC 686

Justice Saunders of the British Columbia Supreme Court recently decided Pritchard v Van Nes, 2016 BCSC 686 (Pritchard) concerning the liability of individuals not only for their Facebook posts, but how their “friends” react to these posts, whether through comments, sharing or otherwise distributing the post. This case asks: if you start the fight, are you liable for the pile-on? The analysis of the Court could have significant repercussions concerning the uneasy balance between the right to reputation and freedom of expression, arguably tipping the balance in favour of reputation in stark departure from recent Supreme Court of Canada cases on defamation (see Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47, Grant v Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, WIC Radio Ltd. v Simpson, 2008 SCC 40).

Legal or Social Responsibility? What are the Responsibilities of Internet Companies for Free Speech?

By Emily Laidlaw

On October 8, 2015

In Internet Law

By: Emily Laidlaw

PDF Version: Legal or Social Responsibility? What are the Responsibilities of Internet Companies for Free Speech?

The current controversy concerning the new Calgary-based app Peeple which will allow users to rate anybody they know – from their colleagues, to their friends, to their exes and neighbours – raises many questions familiar to internet lawyers. What are the rights of the subject matters of these ratings? To privacy? To dignity? What rights of free speech exist for anyone using these apps? And what are the responsibilities of the app developer, legally or ethically? For more on this controversy, see here, here, and here. There are some that question whether the app is a hoax, and I question it myself. Regardless, the Peeple controversy serves as a useful platform for discussions of wider issues in Internet governance. While there is much to be analysed concerning the privacy and harassment implications of this app, with this post I am going to focus on a different aspect of the controversy and that is the social responsibility of technology companies for human rights. By shedding light on the discussions happening in the international community I hope it contextualizes why things like Peeple are so controversial; they strike at the core of larger problems concerning the roles and responsibilities of businesses for human rights and the line between law and voluntary commitments. My recent research on this topic has been focused on free speech, so I will discuss the issue here in that context.

Category: Internet Law Page 3 of 4

Canada’s Proposed New Consumer Privacy Protection Act: The Good, the Bad, the Missed Opportunities

A Right to be Forgotten Online: A Response to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner Draft Position

Douez v Facebook, Inc.: Public Policy and Broad Strokes

Pritchard v Van Nes: Imposing Liability on Perpetrator Zero of Defamatory Facebook Posts Gone Viral

Legal or Social Responsibility? What are the Responsibilities of Internet Companies for Free Speech?