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

  • The illegal phoenixing regime

    The illegal phoenixing regime

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Amending Act) came into force on 18 February 2020 and was designed to prevent illegal phoenixing activity.  The Amending Act introduced reforms such as creditor-defeating disposition provisions to combat phoenixing activity.  Additional provisions amending the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were aimed to encourage accountability by…

    Read more …

  • Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained

    Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained

    9 November 2023 was a crucial date for Australian businesses because from that date significant penalties can now be imposed on businesses found to have unfair contract terms (UCT) in their contracts.  The Federal Government had introduced significant changes to laws relating to UCT on 10 November 2022.

    Read more …

  • Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023 – draft insights

    Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023 – draft insights

    The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (Cth) (Misinformation Bill) was announced by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts (DITRDCA) in January 2023.  The Misinformation Bill is aimed at restricting the flow of misinformation and disinformation by providing the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with increased…

    Read more …

  • National Classification Scheme – proposed federal changes

    National Classification Scheme – proposed federal changes

    Albanese Government announces intention to reform National Classification Scheme, proposing R18+ for games simulating gambling and M for computer games with paid loot boxes/in-game purchases linked to chance. Learn more about proposed reforms and if simulated gambling needs to be addressed.

    Read more …

  • Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games

    Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games

    The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Loot Boxes) Bill 2022 (Bill)  has been tabled in the House of Representatives on the 28 November 2022.  The private member’s Bill acts in response to growing support for the regulation of features and elements within video games which appear to simulate gambling.

    Read more …

  • Consumer law updates business owners should know

    Consumer law updates business owners should know

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Act) amends various pieces of legislation to provide stronger competition and consumer protections.  In particular, the Act bolsters the penalties applicable for offences relating to unfair practices and unfair contract terms under as contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and…

    Read more …

  • Privacy Act amended to increase penalties to a max of $50 million

    Privacy Act amended to increase penalties to a max of $50 million

    The Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 (Bill) was passed by both Houses of Parliament on the 28 November 2022 and now awaits Royal Assent.  The Bill was passed with virtually no amendment.

    Read more …

  • Digital games tax offset introduced by Albanese

    Digital games tax offset introduced by Albanese

    The Albanese Labor Government has proposed a Digital Games Tax Offset (DGTO) of 30%, encouraging the growth of the digital games industry in Australia. Learn more about the DGTO and how it will create more jobs and international competitiveness.

    Read more …

  • Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?

    Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?

    Class action lawsuits commonly resolve in a settlement between the members of a class and the respondents to a claim.  However, there are strict requirements to proposed settlements, including that they are ‘fair and reasonable’, which will be subject to judicial oversight.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend