The new Civil and Commercial Code refers to advertising – including comparative advertising – in the context of the rules concerning consent in consumption agreements. From a legislative viewpoint, this does not appear to be the most advisable perspective, as comparative advertising – the most important effects of which concern competitor companies, rather than consumers – is central to the regulation of advertising.
The Austrian Data Protection Authority (DPA) recently published its first decision on retention periods following the enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation. The decision is final. The DPA had to decide how long a telecoms service provider must retain so-called 'master data' – that is, data required for the controller's legal relationship with the users of its services.
Companies regularly store information about their customers, clients, employees, investors, partners and vendors. Privacy and data security are therefore important aspects of most M&A transactions. Although the risk of non-compliance with privacy laws may result in severe negative consequences, many M&A agreements still lack adequate privacy-related representations and warranties.
Members of Parliament recently filed an application to amend the Data Protection Act 2018 in order to clarify certain aspects which have led to confusion over the past couple of months. In addition to several provisions relating to competence, the proposed act, among other things, contains a rephrased version of the fundamental right to data protection, introduces the mandatory appointment of data protection officers and suggests enabling the matching of images with explicit consent.
Approximately one year before the General Data Protection Regulation will come fully into force, the Austrian legislature has officially started a six-week consultation process for the national Data Protection Amendment Act 2018. If and to what extent the legislature will make use of the competencies provided for by the 'opening clauses' in the General Data Protection Regulation is highly relevant to companies, and the amendment act has answered this question.
A draft law amending the Federal Act against Unfair Competition 1984 and the Price Labelling Act was recently published for public consultation. The draft law intends to introduce a ban on most-favoured nation clauses in contracts between online travel agencies and hotel operators. Commercially, the draft law puts online travel agencies' business model at risk and may even deter innovation and investments beyond this niche industry.
The Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) was introduced to regulate and protect the use of personal information and embodies eight core privacy principles which are internationally recognised and accepted. As with the PIPA, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was enacted to govern the use of personal information and data. Bermuda companies should seek legal advice to determine whether the GDPR applies to their operations and, if so, how.
The president recently approved, with a partial veto, the Project for a General Law regarding Data Protection. The law will regulate the processing of personal data in Brazil. Even though this adaptation may be costly and time consuming, the enforcement of the law is expected to guarantee greater protection of personal data, increasing confidence in Brazil's economic environment.
An eagerly anticipated media law decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal confirms what may seem to be an obvious legal proposition: the publication of a newspaper article online is treated the same as the print version for the purposes of notice and limitation periods in a civil action – in other words, time periods governing libel actions do not start afresh each day that an online article is online.
A recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta highlights the costs consequences of litigating civil actions in Canada in the context of a defamation action involving a self-represented plaintiff who was forced to proceed to trial in order to obtain public acknowledgement that the article in question was defamatory. The plaintiff ultimately obtained a damages award of C$200,000 and recovery of trial costs in the amount of C$250,000.
A defendant or respondent may bring a motion to dismiss an action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) and a judge must dismiss the proceeding if he or she is satisfied "that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest", unless the responding party proves certain facts. Two recent decisions have tested the new anti-SLAPP law in a manner that appears to embrace the philosophy behind the statute.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by Canadian billionaire Mitchell Goldhar against Israel's oldest daily newspaper Ha'aretz. In making its decision, the court considered three factors: whether the Ontario courts had jurisdiction simpliciter over the matter; whether Israel was a more appropriate forum to hear the case; and whether the lawsuit was an abuse of process.