The fact that Bell was the target is significant for at least two reasons. First, Bell administers the do-not-call list under contract. By targeting the company, it sends the message that no one is above the law. Second, as I wrote last year, Bell was seemingly the top source of complaints among reputable companies:
The UK and Ireland are both engaged in reviews of intellectual property laws with an emphasis on fair use reforms. The UK study, focusing on innovation and economic growth, can be found here. Information on the Irish plans here.
Slaw reports that a federal court judge has awarded $5,000 in damages to a self-represented applicant for violations of PIPEDA, relating to an inaccurate credit report.
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
