In a curious, short and plucky pleading filed yesterday in the British Columbia Supreme Court, a Sunshine Coast British Columbia plaintiff has commenced a punitive damages action against Google for allegedly violating Canadian privacy, misleading advertising, criminal, intellectual property and tort laws in relation to its Gmail webmail service. The thrust of the dispute appears to be centered around allegations that Google intercepted and used information from e-mails sent from non-Gmail users to G-mail accounts for advertising.
With respect to privacy, the plaintiff alleges that Google intercepted, copied, scanned, retained and used private communications sent from non-Gmail users to Gmail accounts to generate free information used for advertising services, committing the tort of invasion of privacy under the British Columbia Privacy Act and at common law.
As for competition law, the plaintiff also argues that Google violated the criminal misleading advertising provision (section 52) of the federal Competition Act (misleading advertising under the Competition Act can be enforced as either a criminal or civil matter under sections 52 or 74.01). The plaintiff’s misleading advertising claim is slightly unclear, but he appears to allege that Google failed to disclose its data collection activities (i.e., interception, copying, scanning and use of private communications), its false or misleading representations were made intentionally (i.e., knowingly or recklessly), they were made to advance its business interests and caused the plaintiff (and other class members) damages.
Under the Competition Act, civil actions may be commenced under any of the Part VI offences of the Act, including criminal conspiracy agreements, bid-rigging and criminal misleading advertising, although misleading advertising based civil claims are much less common under the Act than section 45 (conspiracy) based claims. In addition, the misleading advertising provisions of the Act may be violated where a false or misleading claim is made to promote a product or service or “any business interest”, which allows them to be broadly applied to a variety of false or misleading product or business related claims. Both the criminal and civil misleading advertising provisions of the Act can also be violated both with false or misleading claims or in some cases omissions – for example, the omission of material information, such as additional price information, important terms or conditions, etc.
Plaintiffs are, however, required to demonstrate actual loss or damage as a result of conduct challenged in civil actions under the Competition Act (one obvious potential obstacle in this case) and section 36 of the Act, the provision under which civil actions are commenced under the Competition Act, does not allow punitive damages (though are available under other causes of action).
The plaintiff also claims that Google has violated the Criminal Code (by unlawfully intercepting e-mails without judicial authorization under Part VI of the Code, which governs wiretaps and interception of private communications) and federal Copyright law (by infringing the economic and moral rights of class members’ in their e-mails). The plaintiff also makes additional claims in the torts of conversion and detinue, alleging that Google has intercepted and taken e-mails from senders which are not its property.
All in all a most curious and unusual claim, with some commentators referring to it as a “you must be kidding” case. It will be interesting to watch whether the case settles or how Google responds.
For a copy of the plaintiff’s Notice of Civil Claim see: Wayne Plimmer v. Google, Inc.
____________________
SERVICES AND CONTACT
I am a Toronto competition/antitrust lawyer and advertising/marketing lawyer who helps clients in Toronto, Canada and the US practically navigate Canada’s advertising and marketing laws and offers Canadian advertising/marketing law services in relation to print, online, new media, social media and e-mail marketing.
My Canadian advertising/marketing law services include advice in relation to: anti-spam legislation (CASL); Competition Bureau complaints; the general misleading advertising provisions of the federal Competition Act; Internet, new media and social media advertising and marketing; promotional contests (sweepstakes); and sales and promotions. I also provide advice relating to specific types of advertising issues, including performance claims, testimonials, disclaimers, drip pricing, astroturfing and native advertising.
For more information about my services, see: services
To contact me about a potential legal matter, see: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow me on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
