Canada: The Supreme Court Clarifies The Parameters For Assessing Whether A Commercial Representation Is False Or Misleading: The Average Consumer Is Credulous And Inexperienced

Last Updated: April 24 2012
Article by Luc Thibaudeau and Bernard Larocque

Lavery follows the evolution of consumer law closely. Its specialized expertise in the fields of retailing and class actions has been confirmed many times by stakeholders in the milieu. Lavery makes it its duty to keep the business community informed about these matters by regularly publishing bulletins that deal with judicial and legislative developments that are likely to leave their mark and influence or even transform practices in the milieu. The present bulletin analyzes a recent decision of the highest court in the country that will not fail to make waves in an area that affects all of us, that is advertising.

On February 28, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in the case of Richard v. Time Inc. et al. and, reversing the Court of Appeal's decision, partially reinstated the judgment of Justice Carol Cohen of the Superior Court who concluded that a commercial representation was false and misleading. According to the highest court in the country, the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the average consumer has "an average level of intelligence, scepticism and curiosity".


In this case, Mr. Richard had received a letter from Time (the "Document"), written in English, announcing to him that:





The Document was signed by a certain Elizabeth Matthews. Convinced that he had won the prize, Mr. Richard ("Richard") returned the reply coupon and subscribed to Time magazine for two years. That gave him the right to receive, free of charge, a camera and a photo album, which were delivered. However, the long-awaited cheque was never received. Confident about his course of action, Richard tried to contact Ms. Matthews at Time to claim his prize. He was told that this person did not exist. Richard claimed his prize in vain. Claiming to have won the contest and to be entitled to the amount of $833,337, he instituted proceedings against Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. ("Time"), seeking a judgment for the amount stated in the Document, that is to say $833,337.


In the court of first instance1, the judge awarded the claim in part, noting that the Document induced error by means of the false and misleading representations that it contained, such as that it had been signed by a certain person when in reality that person was fictitious, and that Richard had won the contest. The judge ruled that the Document breached several provisions of the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") and gave Richard the general impression that he had won, despite the presence of fine print indicating that such was not the case and that it was only an invitation to participate. Stating that the Document did not contain any obligation to pay, Justice Cohen nevertheless ordered Time to pay Richard $1,000 in damages for moral injuries and $100,000 of punitive damages.


On December 15, 2009, the Quebec Court of Appeal2, in a judgment written by Justice Jacques Chamberland, reversed the above-mentioned judgment. According to the Court of Appeal, despite the form of the Document sent to Richard, it was obvious that he had not won and Time had unambiguously disclosed all of the conditions of the contest to him. Justice Chamberland declined to conclude that Time had breached the CPA, even though it was not expressly stated that Richard's number was not the winning number. It was a contest, and in any contest there are winners and losers.

As for the use of the name of a fictitious person, Justice Chamberland was of the opinion that this approach did not infringe the CPA. The Document came from Time and had been transmitted by Time, the contest being theirs. For Justice Chamberland, the fact that Time used a pen name to personalize its mail did not breach the CPA.

However, Justice Chamberland said that he agreed with Justice Cohen (and the consistent case law) who stated that the false or misleading character of a statement is to be assessed "in abstracto", by reference to an average consumer. He stated that it was not necessary to demonstrate that the consumer had really been misled, but only that there was a possibility of that. However, for Justice Chamberland, the average consumer is sensible and realistic, and knows how to distinguish between reality and the representations made to him:


"[41] It seems to me that the average consumer, whatever his language may be, knows that money does not grow on trees. Who would believe that he had won almost one million American dollars in a lottery that he did not know existed until then and for which he had not bought a ticket?

[42] It seems to me that the average consumer would try to understand. He would read the documentation that was sent to him. It seems to me that he would understand quickly that perhaps he will be the winner of US$833,337, but that it is a little early to rejoice: 1) he must return the participation coupon within the prescribed period of time, 2) his number must be the winning number and lastly, 3) he must answer a question of a general nature." [underlining by Justice Chamberland]

Justice Chamberland ruled that the average consumer could read the entire Document, including the fine print. He also assumed that the average consumer is no more naive than the average person and that he cannot content himself with only reading the main headings and catchy slogans. He concluded that the average consumer knows how to put the exaggerated wording of a catchy offer into perspective.

Were we on the verge of witnessing the advent of a new kind of consumer, that is, the sophisticated consumer of the 21st century? Could we talk about a refinement of the notion of the consumer- Netsurfer to which the Supreme Court had referred in the Dell case3? The Supreme Court did not see things in that way. On February 28, 2012, a unanimous bench of seven judges whose reasons were written by Justices LeBel and Cromwell partially reinstated the decision of Justice Cohen, reducing the punitive damages to $15,000.4


The principal issues tackled in this decision were the following: (1) what is the appropriate method, in Quebec, for assessing whether an advertisement constitutes a false or misleading representation within the meaning of the CPA? (2) in the absence of a contract between the merchant and the consumer, can the latter bring an action for damages based on the commission of a prohibited act? (3) what are the necessary conditions for claiming punitive damages as provided for in section 272 of the CPA? (4) should punitive damages be awarded in this instance and, if so, what criteria must be used to determine the amount?

From the outset, in its description of the facts, the Court set the tone for the reasons that followed: "the Document's visual content and writing style are central to the issue of whether the mailing of the Document constitutes a prohibited practice within the meaning of the CPA."5

The Appropriate Method

In its analysis, the Court first examined the general objectives of consumer law and the structure of the CPA. It stated that following World War II, the advent of the consumer society caused new concerns to appear, anxieties about an increased vulnerability of consumers. The passing of legislation on consumer protection was aimed at governing certain commercial practices judged to be fraudulent toward consumers. One of the main objectives of Title II of the CPA is to protect consumers against false or misleading representations. To do so, the criteria for assessing a representation are set out in section 218 of the CPA, which states that the "the general impression it gives, and, as the case may be, the literal meaning of the terms used therein must be taken into account". While the expression "literal meaning" does not raise any interpretation problems, the Court focused on the notion of "general impression", which required certain explanations6.

The Supreme Court quickly confirmed, like Justice Cohen and the Court of Appeal, that this notion must be considered in abstracto, that is to say by forgetting about the personal attributes of the consumer who has instituted the proceedings7. On this point, Richard maintained that, above all, one must take into account the visual technique of the advertising and the meaning of the words used, and Time retorted that the general impression criterion should not be assimilated to one of instant impression and that the text of section 218 of the CPA suggested a method of analysis that rather put the emphasis on the text of the advertisement. The Court dismissed that argument:

"[58] We cannot therefore accept the distinction proposed by the respondents between "instant impression" and "general impression". In actual fact, the respondents are asking this Court to apply a standard much more exacting than that of the first impression. This conclusion flows necessarily from their position on the application of the general impression test to the facts of the case at bar. To explain why their advertising strategy does not contravene Title II of the CPA, they state that the "documents . . . were in the possession of [the appellant] for a lengthy period of time and [that he] was able to read them carefully on several occasions before sending in the Official Entry Certificate" (R.F., at para. 46 (emphasis added))."8

Therefore, one cannot replace the search for the "general impression" by "an opinion resulting from an analysis". However, that was the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal9. That approach was inappropriate. According to the Court, it too closely resembles the classical civil law approach to contract analysis. The purpose of the provisions of the CPA is to make merchants responsible for the content of their advertisements on the basis of the general impression that they convey. It is presumed that the real meaning of an advertisement is that conveyed by the first impression and, according to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal did not respect that principle10. The consumer does not have to read twice and is presumed to have understood.

So, who is this consumer whose general impression we wish to know about? The Court concluded that the notion of the average consumer is comparable to that developed by the case law concerning trade-marks, that is the "ordinary hurried purchasers" who take no more than "ordinary care to observe that which is staring them in the face"11, similar to that of the "credulous and inexperienced person" developed in Quebec case law of the last 30 years, which some may believe is old-fashioned. It's nothing of the sort. However, the Court notes half-heartedly that the average consumer is not ignorant:

"[72] The words "credulous and inexperienced" therefore describe the average consumer for the purposes of the CPA This description of the average consumer is consistent with the legislature's intention to protect vulnerable persons from the dangers of certain advertising techniques. The word "credulous" reflects the fact that the average consumer is prepared to trust merchants on the basis of the general impression conveyed to him or her by their advertisements. However, it does not suggest that the average consumer is incapable of understanding the literal meaning of the words used in an advertisement if the general layout of the advertisement does not render those words unintelligible."12 [underlining added]

For many readers of this bulletin, this passage will set them thinking. It is permitted to think that the Court suggests that one must give credentials to the merchant's statements and that they are presumed not to omit any important fact in their representations made to consumers. The notion of the consumer "with an average level of intelligence, scepticism and curiosity" suggested by the Court of Appeal was rejected, not fitting with the portrait of the typical consumer that the CPA wishes to protect. He does not have the same level of sophistication as the average person. Moreover, this notion does not fit well with the appreciation "in abstracto" of section 218 of the CPA.13. Therefore, using a criterion that corresponds to that of a prudent and diligent consumer must be avoided. The use of a standard like that of the "consumer with an average level of intelligence" would lead the courts to develop a method of analysis based on the level of sophistication of the consumer in question in a given case, which would facilitate the exoneration of a merchant who is lucky enough to be sued by a consumer of above-average intelligence:

"[75] [...] The court's role would then be to determine whether the consumer exercising the recourse was in fact misled rather than whether the advertisement in question constituted a false or misleading representation. This would decrease the level of protection provided to consumers by the CPA"14

According to the Court, the same goes for the consumer "with an average level of...scepticism and curiosity" used by Justice Chamberland. These criteria cannot be adopted. They would force the consumer to revise or check the representations made to him, thus ignoring the "general impression" criterion. What then about more sophisticated consumers who buy connoisseur goods? The Court does not say a word. The appropriate approach in the circumstances is an analysis in two steps, that is (1) what is the general impression conveyed by the advertising and (2) does that impression correspond to reality? If the answer to the second question is no, the merchant will have engaged in a prohibited practice within the meaning of the CPA.15

As for the Document, the Court first concluded that it takes care to present Richard as having won: "There were repeated indications that a cheque was about to be mailed to the appellant". It was also mentioned that he had to hurry to return the reply coupon, failing which he risked losing everything. According to the Court, even if the Document did not necessarily contain statements that were literally false, it gave the general impression that Richard had won. Furthermore, the contest rules were not at all apparent to someone reading the Document for the first time. These were important facts that could not be ignored. The Court concluded that there had been a breach of sections 219 and 228 of the CPA. There is only a fine line between that and concluding that an advertisement does not need to be false in order to contain misleading representations.

As for the use of a pen name as the signatory of the Document, the Supreme Court stated that it agreed with the Court of Appeal's conclusion and noted that the Document did not contain any false representation concerning the author's identity16.

The Recourse In The Absence Of A Contract

Next, the Court tackled the necessary conditions and criteria for granting the recourses set out in section 272 of the CPA. Here, the Court puts an end to a certain tendency to the effect that the recourses set out in that section are not dependent on the existence of a contract. That tendency relied on the text of section 217 of the CPA: "The fact that a prohibited practice has been used is not subordinate to whether or not a contract has been made."17 The Court refused at this point to broaden the scope of application of the civil recourses under the CPA and ruled that the interest required to act under section 272 of the CPA depends on the existence of a contract covered by the CPA. The Court stated:

"[139] Therefore, s. 217 CPA is not intended to govern the conditions under which the recourses provided for in s. 272 CPA are available and can be exercised. The principles that apply to s. 217 CPA are different from those that apply to s. 272 CPA, and the two provisions have different roles in the scheme of the CPA [...]"18

Section 217 applies only in cases of penal prosecutions commenced by the director of penal prosecutions and section 272 does not apply to a consumer who has not entered into a contract. Moreover, that is the result of the fact that advertisers are not included in the wording of section 272: they have not contracted with consumers.19 We applaud this conclusion, which will be greeted with relief by all merchants targeted in a class action in which authorization is sought to represent a group that includes "those who were offered".

Unfortunately, the Court declined to ask itself if the sending of a reply coupon constituted the conclusion of a contract within the meaning of the Civil Code of Québec ("CCQ" ): "At the very least, the parties entered into a contract for a subscription to Time magazine"20. In that sense, Richard had the interest to take his action.

The Necessary Conditions Of The Recourse Based On Section 272 Cpa

The Court then approved a decision of the Court of Appeal21 to confirm that the recourse under section 272 of the CPA is based on the premise that any failure to comply with an obligation imposed by the CPA leads to an irrefutable presumption of harm to the consumer. The sole proof of the breach of an obligation found in Title I of the CPA enables the consumer to obtain a remedy provided for in section 272, without there being any other condition. The merchant cannot raise the absence of harm22.

A consumer claiming to be the victim of a practice prohibited by Title II must prove: (1) a breach of an obligation imposed by that Title; (2) the acquisition of knowledge, by him, of the representation that constituted a prohibited practice; (3) the subsequent formation of a consumer contract; and (4) a sufficient nexus between the content of the representation and the goods or services covered by the contract23. According to the latter criterion, the prohibited practice must be one that was capable of influencing his behaviour with respect to the formation, amendment or performance of the contract. When these requirements are met, the contract formed, amended or performed constitutes, in itself, a harm suffered by the consumer, who can demand one of the contractual remedies provided for in section 272 of the CPA. Whether it is commenced on a contractual or extracontractual basis24, the recourse provided for in section 272 lightens the consumer's burden of proof, enables him to prove the fault of the manufacturer or merchant, and relieves him from having to prove that the merchant intended to mislead25.

In the present case, the Court ruled that Richard's recourse was extracontractual. However, he still had to prove that Time had engaged in a prohibited practice and also that he acquired knowledge of a false representation that constituted a prohibited practice and influenced the formation of a contract. According to the Court, Richard demonstrated that there was a rational link between the prohibited practices engaged in by Time and his subscription contract: the judge in first instance concluded that he would not have subscribed if he had not read the Document. Time did not succeed in showing that the amount of $1,000 granted by Justice Cohen constituted an error. That conclusion was therefore reinstated26.


Then, the Court analyzed the award of punitive damages and reaffirmed the judgment in first instance while reducing the amount awarded to $15,000. The Court reiterated several principles already stated, that is: (1) in Quebec, the civil law allows the granting of punitive damages only when a legislative provision provides for them27; (2) the plaintiff must have the interest required to claim them; (3) the court is bound by any criteria established in the enabling provision; (4) if the conditions for awarding them or the criteria for assessing them are not set out, those set out in article 1621 C.C.Q. will apply. For this purpose, the court must identify the conduct that is to be sanctioned to discourage its repetition, having regard to the general objectives of punitive damages and the objectives the legislature was pursuing in enacting the provision in question. The Court summarized the principles as follows: "The court must determine (1) whether the conduct is incompatible with the objectives the legislature was pursuing in enacting the statute and (2) whether it interferes with the achievement of those objectives."28 Lastly, the Court reiterated that punitive damages have an autonomous character29. Consequently, section 272 of the CPA does not require the granting of compensatory damages before punitive damages can be granted. The Court expressed itself as follows regarding the applicable method:

"[180] In the context of a claim for punitive damages under s. 272 CPA, this analytical approach applies as follows:

  • The punitive damages provided for in s. 272 CPA must be awarded in accordance with art. 1621 C.C.Q. and must have a preventive objective, that is, to discourage the repetition of undesirable conduct;
  • Having regard to this objective and the objectives of the CPA, violations by merchants or manufacturers that are intentional, malicious or vexatious, and conduct on their part in which they display ignorance, carelessness or serious negligence with respect to their obligations and consumers' rights under the CPA may result in awards of punitive damages. However, before awarding such damages, the court must consider the whole of the merchant's conduct at the time of and after the violation."30

The Court confirmed the ruling of the judge in first instance that the Document was designed in such a manner as to mislead, and that this was intentional and calculated. Moreover, nothing in the evidence showed any behaviour that exhibited any regret on the part of Time, such as the taking of any corrective measures following the receipt of Richard's complaint.

Lastly, as regards the amounts awarded, the Court noted the seriousness of the acts committed, in particular the fact that the advertising was common practice and carried out on a broad scale, elements noted by the judge in first instance. However, following the example of the Court of Appeal, the Court set aside the argument of the judge in first instance who considered the breach of the Charter of the French language as an aggravating factor. As allowed by article 1621 C.C.Q., one can take account of the patrimonial situation of the debtor of the punitive damages, in this case Time, when determining the amount. Basing itself on this article, in the absence of instructions in the enabling statute, the Court should take into account: (1) the seriousness of the fault; (2) the patrimonial situation of the debtor; (3) the extent of the compensation already granted31; (4) whether the payment will be borne by the debtor or a third party. The restorative function will have more impact if it is the defendant and not a third party who pays the damages.

Other factors may be considered in the assessment of punitive damages such as the profits made and the offender's civil, disciplinary and criminal records. These factors will be considered by ensuring "that the amount awarded as punitive damages is rationally proportionate to the objectives for which those damages are awarded ". All of these factors will thus be weighed up to achieve the objectives of the law. In the present case, the Court concluded that the granting of an amount of $15,000 would achieve the objectives of the CPA.


By way of a conclusion, we suggest that you reflect on this passage in the decision of the highest court in the country: "However, it is unreasonable to assume that the average consumer would be particularly familiar with the special language or rules of such a sweepstakes and would clearly understand all the essential elements of the offer made to the appellant in this case."32

Must we understand that all of those who received the same document were convinced that their future was going to change? With the greatest respect for the Court, is there still not a grey zone? Where is the line that must not be crossed? Although this decision brings much clarity to the interpretation of the obligations imposed on merchants and manufacturers, it could have the effect of substantially transforming the world of advertisers, which is recognized as a bearer of fertile imagination and has many admirers.


1 Richard v. Time Inc. & al., [2007] R.J.Q. 2008 (S.C.).

2 [2010] R.J.Q. 3 (C.A.).

3 Dell Computer Corporation v. Dumoulin, July 13, 2007, Supreme Court of Canada.

4 Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8.

5 Paragraph 9.

6 Paragraphs 36 to 48.

7 Paragraph 49.

8 Paragraph 58.

9 Paragraph 59.

10 Paragraph 60.

11 Paragraph 67.

12 Paragraph 72.

13 Paragraphs 73-74.

14 Paragraph 75.

15 Paragraph 78.

16 Paragraph 89.

17 Paragraph 102.

18 Paragraph 109.

19 Paragraph 104-107.

20 Paragraph 110.

21 Beauchamp v. Relais Toyota Inc., [1995] R.J.Q. 741 (C.A.).

22 Paragraph 113.

23 Paragraph 124.

24 For example, in the case of fraud before the formation of the contract.

25 Paragraph 128.

26 Paragraphs 141-142.

27 Principles established in particular in the case of Béliveau St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics inc., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345.

28 Paragraph 179.

29 See de Montigny c. Brossard (Succession), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 64.

30 Paragraph 180.

31 The higher the compensatory damages, the more the risk of a subsequent offence is reduced.

32 Paragraph 86.

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
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.