list of contributors - GALA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CANADA Wendy Reed Geneviève Marcotte Heenan Blaikie wreed@heenan.ca gmarcotte@heenan.ca www.heenanblaikie.com 1. Title Finally! Consumer Protection Regulations Released in Ontario Topic: Consumer protection Where: Canada (Ontario) When: Publication: February 2005; In Force: July 30, 2005 What Happened: Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act 2002 has sat idle, waiting to be proclaimed into force, for over two years. In February, regulations were finally published and a timetable set for the implementation of new consumer protection legislation. The legislation is comprehensive, covering almost any consumer transaction for personal or household purposes over $50, where the business, or the consumer, is located in Ontario. Highlights include: • Extensive disclosure requirements, stipulating what must be disclosed in various forms of consumer agreements; • Pre-contractual disclosure requirements for internet and remote agreements (the latter being agreements entered into where the buyer and seller are not in each other’s presence, e.g. direct mail); • A discontinuation of the uniquely broad restriction against referral selling (even friend-get-friend programs were formerly prohibited); • Application to agreements for both goods and services; • Negative option billing is prohibited for services, in addition to prior prohibition applicable to goods; • Revisions to cost of credit disclosure requirements; • Strengthening of consumer remedies, including cancellation rights, cooling off periods and , notably, credit card charge-backs; • More comprehensive enforcement powers, including increased maximum fines: An individual will be liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both, and a corporation will be liable to a fine of not more than $250,000. Comments: Consumer protection legislation in Canada is largely a provincial concern, and presently requirements and available remedies vary from province to province. Ontario’s new Consumer Protection Act, 2002 is part of a movement in Canada towards harmonization of the various pieces of provincial consumer legislation across the nation. It puts into law commitments made under national harmonization agreements respecting cost of credit and long term leasing disclosure, and internet contacts, in particular. Some provinces are moving more quickly towards harmonization than others
and, even amongst those who have implemented new legislation, there is still not uniformity. For example, Ontario’s legislation takes a relatively neutral approach to technology, and requires similar disclosure in most forms of consumer agreements to what was agreed upon nationally with respect to Internet agreements. Therefore, requirements for some types of contracts may be more onerous in Ontario than in other provinces. Similarly, Ontario’s new legislation allows consumers the remedy of credit card chargeback in the context of any cancelled consumer agreement, not only Internet agreements as has been enacted in some other provinces. As a country, we have work to do to achieve harmonization with respect to provincial consumer protection issues. In the interim, however, Ontario’s new Consumer Protection Act, 2002 will likely have a significant impact on the conduct and agreements of those engaged in consumer transactions in the province. 2. Title Can you use publicly available commercial email addresses for unsolicited marketing purposes? Topic: Privacy Legislation Where: Canada When: December 2004 What Happened: An individual received unsolicited commercial email at his work email address. When the complainant called the company that sent the email, he was told that the email address was taken from his employer’s publicly available website but that since he did not want to receive email from them he would be removed from the list. About a month later the complainant received another unsolicited commercial email, though from a different department of that same company. That second department had obtained the email address through the same means although a different website. The complainant filed a complaint with the Canadian Privacy Commissioner alleging a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Canada’s federal privacy legislation. The Privacy Commissioner’s investigation revealed the truthfulness of the facts as related by the complainant. When the Commissioner’s office spoke with the employer, the employer submitted that email addresses were “business information”, falling within the “business card” exception to personal information under PIPEDA and that companies may thus use such email addresses to contact employees for legitimate business reasons. The employer conceded, however, that permission should be obtained prior to use of the email address for any other purpose. The Privacy Commissioner clarified that although PIPEDA does exclude the name, title, business address and telephone number of an employee, email addresses are not included in the list and are not within the “business card” exception. Not falling within that exception, they are accordingly “personal information” protected by PIPEDA. While the company and its employees, in having the email addresses published, obviously consented to their being used within a certain business scope, there was no consent for the use made, since it was used outside of the scope for which it was made public. Comments: This finding by the Privacy Commissioner is significant for two reasons. First, it found that even information which is publicly available, if it is not used for the purpose for which it was made public, is contrary to PIPEDA.
Page 2 and 3: Table of Contents Argentina Page 5
Page 4 and 5: United States Page 130 Uruguay 133
Page 6 and 7: marketing campaigns. The Code provi
Page 8 and 9: AUSTRALIA Peter Le Guay Cowley Hear
Page 10 and 11: The regulations are designed to inf
Page 12 and 13: Flight Centre's airfares were guara
Page 14 and 15: AUSTRIA Stefan Kofler Greiter Pegge
Page 16 and 17: BOLIVIA Alexandra Blanco Guevara &
Page 18 and 19: BRAZIL Valdir Rocha Veirano Advogad
Page 20 and 21: 5. Title “Faculdades Hélio Rocha
Page 24 and 25: Second, the finding makes clear tha
Page 26 and 27: CHILE Rodrigo Albagli Guillermo Riv
Page 28 and 29: The Council let the claimant know a
Page 30 and 31: COLOMBIA Ricardo Duarte Duarte Duar
Page 32 and 33: 3. Legislation Decision or sentence
Page 34 and 35: advertising and information. Nevert
Page 36 and 37: ody parts. Even if all intimate par
Page 38 and 39: CROATIA Mladen Vukmir Vukmir & Asso
Page 40 and 41: the sentences used in the campaign
Page 42 and 43: DENMARK Johan Løje Hans Flensted -
Page 44 and 45: unsolicited electronic mail in the
Page 46 and 47: FINLAND Bernt Juthström, Mikael Se
Page 48 and 49: on information to be given in respe
Page 50 and 51: practices by marketing COKO buildin
Page 52 and 53: 2. Case Report Topic: The represent
Page 54 and 55: 4. Self-regulation Topic: Can cigar
Page 56 and 57: HUNGARY Matias Vallejos Meana Sall
Page 58 and 59: 4. Title Easyjet Topic: Comparative
Page 60 and 61: A complaint was also received by th
Page 62 and 63: Regulator (ComReg). Under the regul
Page 64 and 65: 3. Legislation Topic: Consumer Prot
Page 66 and 67: Quite clearly the models are posing
Page 68 and 69: In this context measures taken to p
Page 70 and 71: models through a clear and illicit
Page 72 and 73:
The Jury found that: - company B’
Page 74 and 75:
Considering that the fidelity card
Page 76 and 77:
JAPAN Wilfred Wakely Aiba & Partner
Page 78 and 79:
cease and desist orders, administra
Page 80 and 81:
The Court held the trademark was us
Page 82 and 83:
2. Title TELEVISION ADVERTISING LES
Page 84 and 85:
NEW ZEALAND Monica Choy Hesketh Hen
Page 86 and 87:
3. Title Credit Card Companies Pros
Page 88 and 89:
6. Title Therapeutic Services Adver
Page 90 and 91:
PERU José Barreda Barreda Moller m
Page 92 and 93:
- When it contains a false name or
Page 94 and 95:
POLAND Ewa Skrzydło-Tefelska SKS L
Page 96 and 97:
3. Issue: Advertising of medicines
Page 98 and 99:
Comments: This decision shows that
Page 100 and 101:
ROMANIA Florentina Dumitrescu Wood
Page 102 and 103:
or services offered by it. Accordin
Page 104 and 105:
following the legislative initiativ
Page 106 and 107:
SOUTH AFRICA Chris Job & Lindsey Ki
Page 108 and 109:
3. Misleading Advertising Topic: Ad
Page 110 and 111:
In the amended advertisement the ph
Page 112 and 113:
8. Offensive Advertising Topic: Sec
Page 114 and 115:
SPAIN Gerhard W. Volz Schiller Abog
Page 116 and 117:
The criticisms made against the Dra
Page 118 and 119:
SWEDEN Michael Plogell Wistrand Adv
Page 120 and 121:
fulfill the requirements of the MPA
Page 122 and 123:
published advertisements aren’t p
Page 124 and 125:
single bill, customer portal, 24-7
Page 126 and 127:
Polo says it all - small but tough.
Page 128 and 129:
6. Case Report Topic: Licensing Int
Page 130 and 131:
UNITED STATES Douglas J. Wood Jenni
Page 132 and 133:
5. Topic: Degrees of Deception: Int
Page 134 and 135:
The court held that the image right
Page 136 and 137:
penalties stipulated in the law. Th
Page 138 and 139:
2. Case Report Topic: Incorporation
Page 140 and 141:
4. Case Report Topic: Fair Competit
Page 142 and 143:
transmission of institutional messa
Page 144 and 145:
make its own determinations, and in
Page 146 and 147:
CHILE Rodrigo Albagli & Guillermo R
Page 148 and 149:
JAPAN Wilf Wakely Aiba & Partners 4
Page 150:
SWITZERLAND Peter Hofer Frick, Hofe
show all

list of contributors - GALA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?