Volume IV

Issue : 11: June 1, 2006

• Global Sting Operation Targets Major Internet Fraud Schemes
• U.S. Veterans Personal Information Compromised After Home Burglary
• The Co operators Group Wins Domain Name Dispute Over "Cooperator.ca"
• WestJets $15.5 Million Apology to Air Canada
• Wi LAN Files Patent Suit Against D Link
• Complainant Obtains Domain Name Transfer Based on Parent Companys Mark
• Bank Makes Incorrect Assumptions About DNS Listings
• Amazons "One Click" Patent Back Before U.S. Patent Office
• Record Industry Sues XM Satellite Over iPod like Device

Home > Volume IV > Issue 11: June 1, 2006 > Bank Makes Incorrect Assumptions About DNS Listings

Bank Makes Incorrect Assumptions About DNS Listings

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently addressed a bank’s assumptions about its customers’ “do not solicit” (DNS) requests. The complainant asked the bank several times to stop marketing to him, but he continued to receive marketing calls nonetheless. He eventually initiated a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. At about the same time, he contacted the bank again. The bank did not have a record of the complainant’s previous requests to be taken off the marketing lists, but in light of the latest request, they flagged his file as DNS. Once again, the complainant received further marketing calls from the bank.

During the Commissioner’s investigation, the bank explained its approach to DNS listings. The bank took the view that most customers who request a DNS designation do so only to prevent contact from telemarketers or bulk mail marketing programs. The bank assumed that such customers still wish to have their local branch contact them if an offer beneficial to them arises in circumstances that the bank believes may be specifically applicable to the customer.

The Commissioner disagreed with this assumption, and stated that when a customer withdraws consent to marketing the bank should assume that the customer does not wish to receive any sort of marketing at all. When a customer withdraws consent to marketing, the bank can inform the customer of the consequences of that decision but should not interpret the customer’s wishes according to the bank’s own needs.

The Commissioner found that the bank had used the complainant’s personal information without consent, contrary to PIPEDA, and therefore that the complaint was well founded. However, the bank was taking various steps to address the issue (for example, having a central DNS designation override all of its sales tools, and changing its scripting and training to ensure that marketing staff did not contact DNS customers). The Commissioner agreed with the bank that it would still be reasonable to contact DNS-designated customers to advise about GIC or mortgage renewals, or regarding periodic portfolio reviews. For these reasons, the Commissioner found that the complaint had been resolved.

For a copy of the Commissioner’s Findings, visit:

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2005/323_20051222_e.asp