Consumer frustration with just about everything associated with Canadian communications services is well known. The list of concerns is long: high prices, contracts that lock in consumers but not providers, gaming prices to make comparison shopping difficult, and confusing consumer codes among them. As politicians have begun to take notice, the CRTC has suddenly become more active with several consultations and new consumer focused initiatives. My colleague Marina Pavlović, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, has been at the forefront of consumer rights law and communications services for many years. She joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the ongoing consumer challenges and the latest CRTC developments.
Post Tagged with: "contracts"
Why Clicking “I Agree” May No Longer Mean You Agree to Everything
Facebook lost a major legal showdown at the Supreme Court of Canada last week, as the court refused to enforce a forum selection clause included in its standard online contract requiring that legal actions against it be brought in California. In doing so, the court paved the way for a privacy class action lawsuit to proceed in British Columbia under provincial privacy law.
My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that a majority of the court ruled that the unequal bargaining power between consumers and companies such as Facebook meant that the clause should not be enforced. While the ruling can be narrowly interpreted as an affirmation of the importance of privacy rights and as a rebuke to companies that seek to contract out of those rights through forum selection clauses, the decision could have a far more reaching effect, forcing a re-examination of non-negotiated online contracts.
B.C. Court of Appeal Rules Facebook’s Fine Print Trumps Privacy Law
One week after the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that it could order Google to remove websites from its global index, the same court (but different judges) ruled that a privacy class action lawsuit against Facebook could not proceed in the province because the Facebook terms and conditions provide that all disputes must be resolved in a court in Santa Clara, California. The decision should provide a wake-up call to users and policy makers because an absolute approach to terms and conditions not only means that Canadian courts may be unable resolve consumer disputes involving companies like Facebook, but that Canadian law will not apply either.
The current Facebook terms and conditions state:
You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims. The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.
While this appears to be slightly different from the terms that governed the dispute before the B.C. courts (it referenced courts in Santa Clara county), the key takeaway from the decision goes well beyond a proposed class action lawsuit over a Facebook “sponsored stories” program that no longer exists. The trial judge rightly noted that the heart of the case is whether online terms and conditions override domestic legal protections (in this case, the B.C. Privacy Act).
Courts, Online Contracts and Arbitration Clauses
I've been silent thus far on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision involving Dell Computer and online contracting (that will change next week), but in the meantime it is worth noting that the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision one day before the SCC handed down the Dell decision […]
Laws Spur Growth in E-commerce
Laws Spur Growth in E-commercelink to on line articlelink to html archive