Supreme Court of Canada hears 2023 Meta Privacy Decision Appeal – National

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to revise a statement that concluded Facebook Brak the federal privacy legislation by not adequately informing users about risks for their data when using the popular social media platform.

Last September, the Federal Hof van Beroep Facebook, now known as Meta platformsDo not obtain the meaningful permission required by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act between 2013 and 2015.

The decision has annulled a decision in the Federal Court 2023.

The Court of Appeal said that Facebook invited millions of apps on its platform and did not supervise sufficient supervision.

It noted that the failure of the federal court to start relevant evidence on this point was a legislative error.

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne called the decision of the Court of Appeal a recognition that international companies whose business models trust users of users must respect Canadian privacy legislation.

Facebook has applied for a hearing at the Supreme Court and claimed that the Court of Appeal received the wrong approach for permission and security protectors under the Privacy Law.

It said in a written application that the Court of Appeal, rather than to evaluate the multi -layered efforts of Facebook to obtain a meaningful permission, only aimed the privacy policy of the platform.

The Supreme Court, after the usual practice, gave no reasons on Thursday to agree to hear the matter.

A 2019 research report of the then federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien and his counterpart of British Columbia mentioned important shortcomings in Facebook’s procedures and called for stronger laws to protect the Canadians.

The probe followed reports that Facebook had an external organization used an digital app to gain access to the personal information of users, which was then passed on to others.

The app, at a certain moment that is known as ‘This is your digital life’, encouraged users to complete a personality quiz, but collected information about the people who have installed the app and data about their Facebook friends.

Recipients of the information were the British consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica, which was involved in American political campaigns and targeted messages.

Trending now

• Poilievre calls for ‘serious boundaries’ about the growth of the Canadian population

• 15 car dealer workers win $ 20 million Lotto Max -Prize -and appear on time to work

About 300,000 Facebook users worldwide added the app, which led to the possible disclosure of the personal information of around 87 million others, including more than 600,000 Canadians, according to the Commissioner report.

The Commissioners concluded that Facebook has violated Pipeda by not getting a valid and meaningful permission of installing users and their friends, and that it had “insufficient guarantees” to protect user information.

Facebook disputed the findings of the investigation. The company said it was trying to collaborate with the office of the privacy commissioner and to take measures that would go beyond what other companies do.

At the beginning of 2020, Therrien asked the federal court to declare that Facebook had violated the law.

A judge ruled that the Commissioner did not establish that Facebook has violated the law on meaningful permission. He also agreed with the argument of Facebook that as soon as a user authorizes to announce information to an app, the protection tasks of the social media company under Pipeda.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal to Facebook noted the position of Facebook that users read the privacy policy that is presented to them when they register with social network websites – something that the judges called ‘a dubious assumption’, given that such documents can run thousands of words.

“Conditions that are clearly clearly on their faces, do not necessarily translate into meaningful permission,” wrote Justice Donald Rennie for a panel with three members. “Clear clarity can be lost or darkened in the length and the miasma of the document and the complexity of its conditions.”

In this case, Rennie said, a central question whether a reasonable person ‘would have understood that they agreed when downloading a personality quiz (or an app) with the risk that the app would scrape their data and data from their friends, to be used in a way that is contrary to the own internal rules of Facebook (ie to develop in the Metracks in the Metracks in the Metracks in the Metracks in the Metracks in the Metracks of Development).

& copy 2025 The Canadian Press