Privacy Law

7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

In 2020 the 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd ACN 005 299 427 (7-Eleven) chain launched a customer feedback mechanism nationwide which prompted customers to complete a voluntary survey about their experience in store on a tablet device.  When a customer completed the survey, a digital image was taken of the customer which was shared with two (2) Application Programming Interfaces (API) to assess and record certain information about the customer.

On 29 September 2021 the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) recently declared that 7-Eleven breached Australian Privacy Principles with these actions.[1]

Background to the OAIC’s investigation

7-Eleven is considered an ‘APP’ entity under section 6 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Act).  In mid-2020 7-Eleven launched a customer survey mechanism across more than 700 stores throughout Australia, allowing customers to contribute voluntary feedback about their in-store experience.  The survey was supplied by a third party (Supplier) and was delivered on tablet devices, often located at the store counter.  Each time a survey was being completed, the tablet took images of the customer’s face using the built-in camera, and these images were uploaded to a secure server (Server).

The images were stored on the tablet for approximately twenty (20) seconds before being uploaded to the Server.  After seven (7) days, the images were deleted from the Server, however the Supplier used the first of two (2) APIs to convert each of the images into an encrypted algorithmic representation (Faceprint). The Faceprints were stored for an indefinite period of time on the server.

The Faceprint was used to identify information about the approximate gender and age of the customer, which was linked to the survey response.  Any Faceprints that were collected by a tablet within a twenty (20)-hour period were sent to a second API to detect similarities between customers and flagged matched survey results.

7-Eleven’s purpose for collecting such images and Faceprints was to allow an understanding of customer demographics and to detect survey responses from the same individual within a short time period in case such responses were not genuine.

APP and the issue of consent in the 7-Eleven case

The Australian Privacy Principles (APP) are contained within Schedule 1 of the Act and regulate the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information held by APP entities.  APP 3.3 relates to the collection of sensitive information, defined at section 6 of the Act, and includes obtaining the consent of the person providing the sensitive information.  The OAIC found that Faceprints are considered sensitive information[2]  and reviewed the concept of ‘consent’.  Four (4) key elements of consent were identified:

  • the individual is adequately informed before giving consent;
  • the individual gives consent voluntarily;
  • the consent is current and specific; and
  • the individual has the capacity to understand and communicate their consent.[3]

7-Eleven submitted that all stores displayed a notice at the store entrance which had an image of a video or CCTV camera and alerted customers that, by entering the store, they agree to facial recognition technology capturing and storing their image.  The privacy policy contained on 7-Eleven’s website stated that they only collect personal information that is reasonably necessary for 7-Eleven’s business functions.[4]

The OAIC found that 7-Eleven solicited the Faceprints by inviting customers to complete the voluntary survey, and found that there was no clear evidence that individuals consented to the collection of the facial images or Faceprints as:

  • there was no information on or around the tablet noting the collection of the Faceprints;
  • the notices at the store entrances were unclear and may have created an impression that the images being captured were for surveillance purposes; and
  • the privacy policy contained on 7-Eleven’s website was not linked to the collection of Faceprints to the use of in-store ‘feedback kiosks’.[5]

OAIC declaration

The OAIC declared that, between 15 June 2020 and 24 August 2021, the 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd interfered with the privacy of customers through the collection of images and Faceprints and breached the APP by:

  • collecting customer images and Faceprints without consent, and where that information was not reasonably necessary for 7-Eleven’s functions and activities (APP 3.3); and
  • failing to take reasonable steps to notify individuals about the facts and circumstances of collection and the purposes of collection of that information (APP 5).[6]

The OAIC declared that 7-Eleven must destroy, or cause to be destroyed, all Faceprints, and must not repeat or continue the conduct.[7]

Takeaways for businesses

A key issue for 7-Eleven was that there was a lack of clear, express disclosure regarding the collection of the facial images and Faceprints.  The in-store notices were vague and the information was not provided in a clear manner within the vicinity of the tablet.  As such, customers were not adequately informed about what they were being asked to consent to and, as such, could not provide valid consent.

The OAIC declaration highlights that, to be properly compliant with the APPs, businesses must ensure that notices relating to the collection of personal information are displayed clearly and in an appropriate location, and they accurately outline what information is collected and why.

Links and further references

Legislation

Privacy Act 1998 (Cth)

Cases

Commissioner initiated investigation into 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (Privacy) (Corrigendum dated 12 October 2021) [2021] AICmr 50

Further information about Australian Privacy Principles

If you need advice on compliance with Australian Privacy Principles, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Ibid, at [4] to [6].

[2] Ibid, at [80] to [84].

[3] Ibid, at [50].

[4] Ibid, at [89] to [91].

[5] Ibid, at [93].

[6] Ibid, at [107] and [125].

[7] Ibid, at [135].


Related insights about Australian Privacy Principles

  • Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    When employees leak confidential information or threaten to go to the media, employers can face serious consequences. Find out what the Fair Work Commission says about this issue and what options employers have to protect themselves.

    Read more …

  • Federal Circuit Court strikes down ‘no refunds’ clause

    Federal Circuit Court strikes down ‘no refunds’ clause

    In a recent judgment (Ferme v Kimberley Discovery Cruises Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 2384), the Federal Circuit Court held that a term of a cruise company’s standard conditions, which allowed the company to cancel a cruise for a wide range of reasons without giving any refunds to its passengers, was an ‘unfair term’ under the…

    Read more …

  • Data security – the increasing burden

    Data security – the increasing burden

    The consequences for an Australian business victim for a breach of cyber security are forecast to exponentially increase. In February 2015 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (Committee) recommended the introduction of mandatory data breach notification scheme (Scheme) by the end of 2015.[1] Whilst the details of the incoming Scheme are currently scant,…

    Read more …

  • Revenge porn – legal options

    Revenge porn – legal options

    Revenge porn (Revenge Porn) refers to sexually explicit media that is distributed without the consent of the individual(s) involved.[1]  An act of Revenge Porn therefore involves the recording of video or still images of a person that is usually engaged in sexual acts (Revenge Content) and publishing or threatening to publish it.  A person’s participation…

    Read more …

  • What exactly is an advertising sign-off?

    What exactly is an advertising sign-off?

    Injunctions are Court orders that can restrain almost any conduct. Prohibitory, Mandatory, and Ex Parte injunctions can be sought if serious question to be tried, urgency, damages would not suffice, and the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

    Read more …

  • Deceiving conduct costs Coles a lot of dough: ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 330

    Deceiving conduct costs Coles a lot of dough: ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 330

    Coles Supermarkets has been ordered to pay a $2.5 million penalty for breaching the Australian Consumer Law. The Federal Court ruling serves as a reminder to businesses to be aware of their obligations under the Competition and Consumer Act and the Australian Consumer Law.

    Read more …

  • Reseller agreements – order taker or fiduciary

    Reseller agreements – order taker or fiduciary

    A Reseller Agreement is a powerful tool for businesses, but understanding the legal distinctions between a Reseller and an Agent is essential. Discover the key differences and how to protect your business in this informative blog post.

    Read more …

  • Facebook comments ruled as workplace bullying

    Facebook comments ruled as workplace bullying

    A ruling by the Fair Work Commission has broadened the concept of ‘being at work’ to include activities authorized or permitted by the employer. Learn more about how this could affect your workplace and why it’s important to have a strong social media policy in place.

    Read more …

  • Proposed anti-bullying laws to target social media platforms

    Proposed anti-bullying laws to target social media platforms

    The Federal Government is introducing legislation to protect children from online bullying on social media. Find out more about the powers the Children’s e-Safety Commissioner will have to address this issue.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend