PIPEDA Case Summary #2004-271

Bank continues to send solicitations despite being informed to stop

[Principle 4.3.8.]

Complaint

An individual continued to receive unwanted credit card offers from a bank despite asking the bank to stop sending such solicitation documents.

Summary of investigation

Following the bank’s refusal to issue an individual a credit card, the bank continued to send mail to the complainant on a regular basis asking the individual to apply for the card. The complainant informed the bank of the solicitations on at least two occasions, once in writing and once over phone. During the telephone conversation, a bank employee apparently assured the individual that his name would be removed from the marketing list and that he would no longer receive solicitations. A few months later, the complainant received the same offer from the bank once again.

The bank could not determine why the individual continued to receive the offers even though the complainant had expressed a wish to no longer receive them. After numerous searches, the bank indicated that it was unable to locate the letter the individual sent or confirm the telephone call made by the individual to request that the bank cease its solicitations.  

In a letter from the bank it was, however, noted that an attempt to take the individual’s name off the list was indeed made. It would appear, however, that the name was not taken off the list because the individual’s given name was not entered correctly into the databank.

Findings (Issued on March 11, 2004 )

Jurisdiction : As of January 1, 2001 , the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the Act) applies to any federal work, undertaking or business. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner had jurisdiction in this case because the bank is a federal work, undertaking or business as defined in the Act.

 Application : According to principle 4.3.8 of Schedule 1, an individual may withdraw consent at any time, subject to legal or contractual restrictions and reasonable notice. The organization shall inform the individual of the implications of such withdrawal.

The individual indicated that he had submitted a written request to withdraw his consent to receive credit card offers , as provided for in a clause on the application form . He had allegedly also informed a bank employee of his request by telephone. The investigation revealed that the individual did indeed contact the bank and that an attempt had been made to take his name off the list, but the attempt was not successful because the individual’s name was entered incorrectly into the databank.

The Assistant Commissioner determined that the bank was in violation of principle 4.3.8 of Schedule 1.

The Assistant Commiss i oner concluded that the complaint was well-founded .

The Assistant Commissioner pointed out, however, that during the investigation the bank had successfully removed the complainant’s name from its marketing databank .