Canada: Criminal Competition Law Developments in 2010

Criminal competition law investigations and prosecutions were once more at the forefront of Canada's Competition Bureau and global antitrust regulators in 2010. While there were fewer large-scale global investigations launched, 2010 marked an uptick in domestic price fixing and bid-rigging investigations and a pattern of escalating fines, and in the U.S., increasing imprisonment terms.

This report gathers together the various developments in Canadian and foreign criminal competition law, and we trust it will be useful to you in your businesses and practices.

Our review begins with an examination of concluded Bureau cases.


In the past year, the Bureau concluded a number of bid-rigging and price fixing cases as well as deceptive marketing practices investigations.

Cartel Cases

  • Tassimco Technologies Canada Inc. pleaded guilty on January 26 to a charge of bid-rigging in relation to the supply of traffic signals to the City of Québec and paid a fine of $50,000 together with a prohibition order for ten years; no individuals from the Company pleaded guilty in this case;
  • Solvay Chemicals Inc. pleaded guilty on May 12 to price fixing under Section 45(1) of the Act in relation to hydrogen peroxide and was fined a total of $2.5 million; this followed the earlier resolution of the Bureau's case against Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V. on the same investigation, resulting in a guilty plea in November, 2008 and a fine of $3.15 million; no individuals were charged in this investigation;
  • The Bureau's continuing inquiry into price fixing in certain retail gasoline markets in Québec netted an additional 25 price fixing charges against individuals and three companies; a number of corporations and individuals have to date entered pleas of guilty in this matter and a chart of the respective dispositions of these cases (as of March 23, 2010) is available on the Bureau's website; at this writing, no date has yet been set for preliminary inquiries or trials on the charges in the various markets;
  • Embraco North America Inc. pleaded guilty on October 27 and was fined $1.5 million on a single count of price fixing under Section 45(1) of the Act; the products were sold to a household refrigerator and freezer manufacturer in Canada; no individuals from the Company were charged;
  • Cargolux Airlines International S.A. pleaded guilty on October 28 to a single count of price fixing under Section 45(1) of the Act relating to hermetic refrigeration compressors; air cargo fuel surcharges for international air cargo transportation services outbound from Canada and was fined $2.5 million; the Bureau obtained a number of prior pleas from other carriers in 2009 and links to those dispositions may be found below; no individuals from any carrier have so far been charged in this investigation;

    Air Carriers Plead Guilty to Price-Fixing Conspiracy
    Fourth Guilty Plea in Air Cargo Price-Fixing Conspiracy
    British Airways Pleads Guilty in Air Cargo Price-fixing Conspiracy
  • Panasonic Corporation pleaded guilty on November 3 to a single count of price fixing relative to hermetic refrigeration compressors sold to a refrigerator and freezer manufacturer in Canada and was fined $1.5 million; the Bureau's press release and associated documents indicated that Panasonic was a leniency applicant; no individuals were charged and the Bureau's press release stated that the Panasonic plea marked the end of the Bureau's investigation into the matter; no individuals were charged.

Deceptive Marketing Practices and Related Cases

  • An individual, Olufemi Olutunde, pleaded guilty to the offence of fraud over $5,000 under the Criminal Code in a scheme involving fraudulent offers of employment and processing of payments for a fictitious company located abroad; on February 26, Olutunde was sentenced to a term of 12 months in jail and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $23,000 to 14 victims of the scheme;
  • On April 12, the Bureau laid deceptive telemarketing charges in Québec against three individuals and six companies allegedly involved in fraudulent business directory schemes; at this writing, there is no information on the trial dates or potential resolution of these cases;
  • On May 31, an individual pleaded guilty in a U.S. court to selling counterfeit cancer drugs over the internet; Hazim Gaber was sentenced on August 25 to a term of 33 months in prison, a fine of $75,000 (U.S.) and ordered to pay $50,724 (U.S.) in restitution, along with a three-year probationary term following his release;
  • On July 30 an individual pleaded guilty to a single count of misleading representations and was convicted also of counts of fraud and theft exceeding $5,000 under the Criminal Code; Bradley O'Neil misled tourists seeking GST refunds when, instead, he stole their deposits; on September 30 he was sentenced to a term of five years for the counts of fraud and theft exceeding $5,000 and three years on the Competition Act count; the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.


There were a number of charges that were either resolved in favour of defendants, or that remain for determination by the courts.

  • On March 19, the Bureau's appeal of a sentence of an absolute discharge on Daniel Drouin, who had pleaded guilty as a participant in the retail gasoline price fixing scheme in Victoriaville, Québec, was dismissed, the Court determining that no error in principle had been made by the sentencing case;
  • On May 25, the Québec Superior Court acquitted Électromega Limitée on bid-rigging charges relating to the supply of traffic signals to the City of Québec, the Court determining that proof of the necessary agreement had not been established;
  • On February 17, 2009, bid-rigging charges were laid against a number of IT service providers to the Canadian Border Services Agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, and Transport Canada. Two individuals have since pleaded guilty to bid-rigging offences and sentences of a $25,000 fine (with a prohibition order) and an absolute discharge (with accompanying donation of $5000 to charity and a prohibition order), respectively, were imposed. The preliminary hearing for the remaining defendants on the charges began on December 6;
  • Toshiba of Canada Inc. continued its interlocutory proceedings against the Commissioner of Competition after having lost its preliminary application for disclosure of Bureau documents and cross-examination of a Bureau affiant, all preliminary to its main motion challenging the Commissioner's ability to obtain foreign-sourced documents pursuant to Subsection 11(2) of the Competition Act. At this writing, Toshiba's application for leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Superior Court remains on reserve before Ontario's Divisional Court;
  • A number of companies and individuals unsuccessfully sought to quash a Bureau search warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace; the Québec Superior Court determined there was no Charter or other breach in obtaining the warrant; the companies and individuals have sought to appeal the decision to the Québec Court of Appeal;
  • Three construction companies and their respective presidents have been charged with bid-rigging in Québec, and the trial on those charges has been set for June 13 to 22, 2011 before the Québec Court at Chicoutimi;
  • The Bureau laid a further set of Québec bid-rigging charges on December 21 against eight companies and five individuals accused of rigging bids for private-sector ventilation contracts for residential high rise buildings in the Montréal area; as of this writing, no trial dates have yet been set;
  • Various charges of misleading representations under Section 52 of the Act remain before the courts, including R. v. Michael Reynolds, involving alleged cancer curing therapies, R. v. J.D. Marvel Products, CND Mail Exchange and John Dragan, involving representations of mail-order products to both Canadian and U.S. victims, and three groups of telemarketing charges pursuant to Section 52.1 involving Gordon Frank (et al), Garther Cheung (et al), and Cory Kornelson (et al) in alleged schemes for business directories.


As is now well known, the amendments to Section 45 of the Act were proclaimed in force on March 12, 2010, thus ushering in a new era for antitrust criminal prosecutions in Canada wherein proof of market effects is no longer a component of the government's case. At the time of enactment of the legislation, the Bureau issued Competitor Collaboration Guidelines which provide guidance to businesses and practitioners on the Bureau's enforcement approach in applying the amended Section 45 together with its related civil provision, Section 90.1.

To date, the Bureau has not yet laid any charges under Canada's new per se conspiracy law. Time will tell whether the proclamation of the revised and easier prosecution test will lead to more aggressive enforcement and quicker investigations by the Bureau's Criminal Branch. In this regard, it should be noted that the Commissioner has signalled a more aggressive approach, with a willingness to bring cases in order to test the law and resolve ambiguities as factual circumstances may dictate; see, for example, remarks by the Commissioner to the Canadian Bar Association's (CBA) Fall Competition Law Conference.

The other significant amendments to criminal enforcement provisions were:

  • increasing maximum penalties under the conspiracy provision to 14 years' imprisonment for individuals and fines of $25 million;
  • repealing all criminal price-maintenance provisions of the Act, and the replacement thereof with a civil tribunal procedure whereby the Commissioner or person granted leave is required to establish that the indicated practice had an "adverse effect on competition in a market;"
  • adding an agreement to withdraw a bid to the prohibited conduct under the bid-rigging definitions of section 47 of the Act (in order to counter the 2004 decision of the Ontario Court [General Division] in the case of R. v. Rowe);
  • increasing penalties for failing to comply with an order under section 11 of the Act, as well as for acts of obstruction.


There were no changes to the Bureau's immunity policy in 2010. Public remarks by the Senior Deputy Commissioner, Criminal Matters at the CBA's Annual Fall Competition Law Conference in late September indicated that the number of immunity applications had declined somewhat from previous years (ten applications as of the date of that conference), and with most applications occurring in relation to bid-rigging cases, suggesting a more domestic focus. Again, it is likely too early to tell whether the proclamation of the new legislation will lead to a surge in immunity applications, although the numbers of applications for advisory opinions under transitional Section 440 of the Act were few. There were reportedly six such applications, and this may or may not be reflective of the anxiety felt by Canadian businesses as to their potential exposure under the amended provisions. Notwithstanding what the statistics may reveal, the Bureau's immunity program remains the prime generator of criminal cartel and bid-rigging enforcement actions.


After a couple of rounds of consultation, the Bureau published its final Leniency Program Bulletin on September 29, together with an FAQ document providing specific information on particular questions arising under the program (links to the documents may be found below).

Leniency Program

In brief, the program is similar to the characteristics of other leniency (i.e. non-immunity) regulatory regimes which offer discounting of fines and the ability to protect co-operating individuals for the first party to make application after the immunity applicant, and thereafter incentives on a descending scale depending upon the relative time of arrival of the leniency applicant. The initial applicant is entitled to receive a discount of 50% of the fine that would ordinarily have been imposed pursuant to the Bureau's usual application of a proxy calculation of 20% of the participant's Canadian volume of commerce in the product over the time period of the illegal cartel. That applicant is also entitled to protect all co-operating individuals from prosecution. Thereafter, subsequent applicants receive lesser discounts on fines and individuals involved in the criminal behaviour may be subject to prosecution on a case-by-case basis.

In substance, the policy is similar to the one employed by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) but lacks the associated imprimatur of a sentencing commission to give weight to its precepts. It is also similar in terms to several leniency policies in force by other regulatory regimes such as Japan and Korea, where discounts of 50% of administrative fines are imposed for second-in applicants that conform with certain conditions.

Although there have been many settled cartel cases in which the ranges of judicially-imposed fines have fallen within the Bureau's 20% proxy calculation, there has never been any judicial test of the Bureau's proxy fine calculation process in a contested case. Many commentators have expressed the view that the proxy calculation (which incorporates a standard overcharge of 10% upon a cartelized product) is subject to a number of uncertainties; however, it is likely that non-immunized parties will continue to seek to resolve their cases in Canada through negotiated plea agreements on the basis of the principles outlined in the leniency policy.


On May 14, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) - an independent federal prosecution agency - was released (a link to the document may be found here). The document provides a description of the functional and operational responsibilities of each agency and contains certain tenets as to the necessary independence of decision-making on the part of PPSC, although allowing for a high degree of consultation and communication between the Bureau and the PPSC. It is expected that this document will provide a degree of guidance and clarity to parties facing potential indictment by referral of a matter to the former Attorney General, now Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under the provisions of Subsection 23(1) of the Act.


There were a number of judicial decisions having potential impacts on Bureau criminal cases, including, most notably:

  • Commissioner of Competition v. Toshiba of Canada Ltd. [2010] ONSC 659, wherein a preliminary proceeding in support of a substantive challenge to a Bureau production order was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court (as at this writing, a decision on Toshiba's application for leave to appeal this decision is currently pending before the Ontario Divisional Court);
  • R. v. Bruce Power Inc. et al [2009] 98 O.R. (3rd) 272, a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario involving the scope of solicitor-client privilege and appropriate remedies where governmental authorities breach that privilege;
  • R. v. Briscoe 2010 SCC 13, a decision clarifying the mens rea or intention requirements for party liability cases under Section 21 of the Criminal Code; and
  • R. v. Vittorio (Vic) de Zen et al (2010) ONSC 974, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court examining the discretionary use by the DPP of his power under Section 568 of the Criminal Code to require a jury trial; in examining this use of discretion by the DPP, the Ontario Superior Court determined that a decision to seek trial pursuant to judge and jury had been based on partisan considerations relating to tactics.


The Antitrust Division remained very active in its pursuit of antitrust criminal matters in 2010. An overall summary (for the Division's fiscal period ending September 30) shows that the Division filed sixty criminal cases and obtained fines slightly in excess of $550 million. Eighty-four corporate and individuals were charged, and the average sentence imposed upon all individuals was thirty months imprisonment, with foreign nationals averaging some ten months incarceration.

Some notable highlights from the Division's criminal enforcement activity in the 2010 calendar year were:

  • Parker ITR S.r.l., a marine hose manufacturer in Italy was ordered to pay a $2.29 million fine on its plea of guilty on conspiracy charges to rig bids, fix prices and allocate market shares of marine hose sold in the U.S. and elsewhere;
  • There were several developments in the Division's investigation into collusion among manufacturers of TFT-LCD panels, including the following:
  • Three former or present executives with Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation pleaded guilty for their roles in participating in the global conspiracy and received jail sentences ranging from 9 months to fourteen months;
  • A former executive of Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation was indicted on charges of participating in the global conspiracy;
  • AU Optronics Corporation of Taiwan was indicted upon charges of participating in the global conspiracy;
  • HannStar Display Corporation, based in Taipei, Taiwan paid a fine of $30 million on its plea of guilty for its role in participating in the global conspiracy;
  • A former executive from HannStar Display Corporation agreed to serve seven months' incarceration and to pay a fine of $20,000 on his plea of guilty for participating in the global conspiracy.
  • A former executive of a Taiwan-based display manufacturer was indicted upon charges of participating in a global conspiracy to fix prices of colour display tubes; three former executives of two manufacturers were indicted upon charges that they participated in the global conspiracy;
  • Ian P. Norris, a former CEO of The Morgan Crucible Company plc was convicted of the offence of conspiracy to obstruct justice by a Philadelphia jury following his extradition from the U.K. upon the charges relating to the Division's investigation of the carbon brush and related industries; on December 10, he was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment by the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia; the case marks a substantial milestone for the Division, being the first defendant successfully extradited to the U.S. upon antitrust-related charges;
  • Panasonic Corporation and a Whirlpool Corporation subsidiary, Embraco North America Inc., pleaded guilty and paid a total of $140.9 million in fines for their roles in an international conspiracy to fix prices of refrigerant compressors used in refrigerators and freezers;
  • Six international freight forwarding companies agreed to plead guilty and to pay fines totalling $50.27 million for their roles in several conspiracies to fix a variety of fees and charges relating to the provisions of freight forwarding services for international air cargo shipments;
  • Several carriers, including Northwest Airlines LLC, Polar Air Cargo LLC, China Airlines Ltd., All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd., Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte. Ltd., agreed to plead guilty and pay monetary penalties arising from their participation in a conspiracy to fix prices in relation to cargo rates and surcharges for customers in the U.S. over varying durations;
  • Several executives and former executives of certain international carriers were indicted for their participation in the same conspiracy;
  • Florida West International Airways Inc. and three of its executives were indicted in relation to a conspiracy to fix rates and components of air cargo shipment prices from Columbia to Miami;
  • Four former airline executives of competing air cargo carriers were indicted for participating in a conspiracy to fix surcharges on air cargo shipments from the U.S. to south and central America following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita;
  • Two former executives of Asiana Airlines, Inc., were indicted for their participation in a conspiracy to fix economy class airfares paid by passengers who travelled from the U.S. to Korea.


The Commission concluded several investigations in 2010, and the Commission's escalating fines in some cases exceeded those imposed by the U.S. DOJ. We summarize:

  • Nine DRAM producers of memory chips used in computers and servers were fined a total of €351 million at the conclusion of the Commission's investigation on May 19; the case was also notable for imposition of its first settlement procedure decision based on Articles 7 and 23 or Regulation 1/2003 of the Commission's procedures; The cartel operated between July 1/98 and June 15/02; Micron received full immunity as the first-in to the Commission's leniency program; a link to the Commission's chart of fines may be found here.
  • Seventeen bathroom equipment manufacturers were fined a total of €622 million on June 23 in a long-duration price-fixing cartel occurring between 1992 and 2004; prices for bathroom fixtures and fittings were co-ordinated in Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, France and the Netherlands; MASCO, a U.S. company, received full immunity under the Commission' leniency program; a link to the Commission's charter fines may be found here.
  • Seventeen producers of pre-stressing steel were fined a total of €458 million on October 6 for an 18-year price fixing and market-sharing cartel ending in 2002; the cartel involved Pan-European cartel meetings under the monikers "Club Zurich," "Club Europe," and regional branches, "Club Italia" and "Club Espańa"; a link to the Commission's chart of fines may be found here.
  • Five producer groups of animal feed phosphates were fined a total of €176 million on July 20 for a price fixing cartel involving animal feed phosphates; Kamira/Yara received immunity as the first-in under the Commission's leniency program; the case was also notable because it was resolved through a partial-settlement process which permitted four of the producer groups to receive an additional discount under the streamlined settlement procedure, while one producer group received a "standard" decision with no fine reductions; a link to the Commission's chart of fines may be found here.
  • Eleven air-cargo carriers were find a total of €799 million on November 9 in relation to the operation of a global cartel affecting cargo services within the European economic area; the carriers co-ordinated action on surcharges for fuel and security without discounting over a six-year period; Lufthansa and its subsidiary, Swissair received immunity as the first-in under the Commission's leniency program; a link to the Commission's chart of fines may be found here.
  • Six LCD panel producers were fined a total of €649 million on December 8 in relation to the operation of a price fixing and information-exchange cartel operating between October 2001 and February 2006; Samsung Electronics received immunity as the first-in under the Commission's leniency program and was not penalized; a link to the Commission's chart of fines may be found here.


The JFTC was increasingly active in its pursuit of price-fixing and bid-rigging cases in 2010, reflecting the effectiveness of its immunity program, in force from January 2006. For the year ending March 31 2010, the JFTC reported that it had received 85 applications for leniency. Among several price-fixing and bid-rigging matters (which were largely domestic in origin) were the following notable cases where cease-and-desist orders and surcharge payments were ordered under the provisions of the Antimonopoly Act:

  • On March 29, the JFTC announced the imposition of cease-and-desist orders and large surcharge payments against several entities involved in a price-fixing cartel for CRT television tubes; a link to an English-language translation of the announcement may be found here.
  • On November 18, the JFTC announced the imposition of cease-and-desist orders and large surcharge payments against four entities involved in a price-fixing cartel relating to electric wire and cable distribution; a link to an English-language translation of the announcement may be found here.


The KFTC remained one of the more active global regulators in criminal enforcement in 2010, with its penalization of 21 air carriers involved in conspiracies to introduce fuel surcharges and raise surcharge rates for cargo to and from Korea on four principal routes in and out of Korea being its most notable case in the year. Substantial surcharges were imposed on 19 of the 21 carriers; a link to the KFTC's announcement and a chart of penalties may be found here.


The ACCC remained very vigorous in criminal enforcement in 2010, with a large number of domestic and international cases either resolved or placed before the Federal Courts for determination. Among the more notable developments were:

  • The institution of proceedings against additional air cargo carriers (Korean Air Lines, Air New Zealand, and Japan Air Lines) upon allegations of fixing prices in relation to fuel and security surcharges applied to air cargo shipments; links to those announcements may be found below:

    Korean Air Lines
    Air New Zealand
    Japan Air Lines
  • Those proceedings bring to 15 the number of air cargo carriers against which the ACCC has brought proceedings arising from their investigation into the matter;
  • The imposition of penalties exceeding $8.24 million (Australian $) upon four foreign-based suppliers of marine hose arising from their participation in a price-fixing cartel relating to supply of marine hose in the Australian market; the investigation was co-ordinated with the US DOJ and the UK OFT; a link to the ACCC's announcement may be found here.
  • The imposition of penalties totalling $4 million (Australian $) against two paper companies for engaging in a price fixing cartel relating to the pricing of copy paper and uncoated wood-free folio paper in the Australian market; a link to the ACCC's announcement may be found here.


The Bureau has advised that it is developing an MOU with the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada relating to issues of debarment in bid-rigging cases and certain related matters. The Bureau has also advised that it is working on an internal study on the relationship between civil class action proceedings and criminal investigations. It is not known whether there will be any public release or statement relating to this internal study.


The year 2010 was a busy year for Bureau and global antitrust regulators. While there was a greater focus on resolving continuing global investigations (as opposed to launching new probes), the pattern of escalating fines and, in the U.S., increasing imprisonment terms, demonstrates the dedication of global regulators in pursuing antitrust violations and seeking appropriate deterrent penalties. 2011 will likely provide more milestones in this area.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.