Explore

In December 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics issued a report entitled “Democracy Under Threat: Risks and Solutions in the Era of Disinformation and Data Monopoly.” Its recommendations included transparency obligations requiring platforms to establish online political advertising databases disclosing information such as who financed particular advertisements. The Committee also made content-based suggestions, e.g. imposing a duty on social media platforms to: label bot-produced content, find and take down fake accounts imitating people “for malicious reasons,” and label advertising. Fulfilling this duty would also entail compliance with a code prohibiting “deceptive or unfair practices” and compelling “prompt responses to reports of harassment, threats and hate...

This case arose from a trade secret dispute between plaintiffs and their former employee, who allegedly worked with a competing firm to create and sell a knock-off of plaintiffs' computer hardware product. Defendants fled Canadian jurisdiction rather than defend the case. Google was not a party, but became involved based on plaintiffs' demand that Google de-list search results. One key question was whether Google, as a non-party facing no liability claims of its own, could be ordered to take down search results for defendants’ websites in the first place. The other key issue was the global scope of plaintiffs' demands: while Google agreed to de-list results on the search engine's Canadian version at www.google.ca, plaintiffs sought - and lower courts granted - orders to de-list on all versions of web search globally...

The dispute involved links to the website of a company that had been found to have stolen trade secrets from a competitor and used unfair competition tactics to lure customers into purchasing the copied products. The lower court issued an injunction ordering Google to remove search results for specific websites. The Supreme Court upheld this order, that is unprecedented for Canada as it forces Google to remove links for search queries coming from anywhere in the world, rather than only from the search results available through Google.ca. See also M. Geist Blog. See also CIS Blog Post

Recognizing the unequal bargaining power between companies and consumers, the Supreme Court rejected a forum selection clause requiring that legal actions taken against Facebook should be taken in California. The Supreme Court decision stroke down a B.C. Court of Appeal decision that ruled that a privacy class action could not proceed because the company terms and conditions provided the disputes must be resolved in Santa Clara, California. See also M. Geist Blog

(1) The most pertinent parts of this Act for intermediaries are sections 2.4(1)(b), 27 and 29. Section 2.4(1)(b), known as the “Common Carrier Exemption”, states that an intermediary is not liable for copyright infringement by merely providing “the means of telecommunication necessary” for others to communicate digital content. (2) Section 27 pertains to secondary infringement. Pursuant to section 27(1), the copyright owner holds the exclusive right to authorize any activities that involves his/her work. One issue, therefore, is whether intermediaries may be held liable for authorizing infringing acts carried out by their users. Section 27(2) addresses secondary infringement (e.g., when a person sells, imports or distributes illegal copies of material). (3) Provisions related to fair dealing are also relevant. As per...

Paypal has voluntarily blocked a number of Canadian Virtual Private Network (VPN) services from using its payment intermediary mechanisms, citing copyright infringement and the payment intermediary's acceptable use policy. The specific infringing activity that prompted Paypal to suspend payment services to these Canadian VPNs relates to the manner in which such services allow customers to access subscription services such as Netflix from various geographpic regions. Copyright licensing is terrotorial, meaning that streaming services such as Netflix obtain different content for different countries. A core functionality of VPNs is that individuals using such services to encrypt their network traffic will at times appear to be based in foreign countries. As a result, individuals using VPNs will be able to access content...