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

  • International businesses subject to Australian privacy laws

    International businesses subject to Australian privacy laws

    Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) Commissioner Falk determined how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will assess if international entities have an Australian Link to Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

    Read more …

  • Hermès sues artist over NFT “Birkin” bags

    Hermès sues artist over NFT “Birkin” bags

    Explore the implications of virtual artworks created with the help of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and how this has caused a legal battle between a renowned fashion house and an American artist. Learn more about the copyright and trade mark infringement issues, and the implications of this case for the future of digital art.

    Read more …

  • Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 update

    Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 update

    The Therapeutic Goods Administration has released the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 (Cth), introducing changes to distinguish between physical and online therapeutic goods, updates to medical device and medicine advertising, and more. Get the details to stay informed and ensure compliance with the new rules.

    Read more …

  • The new Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021

    The new Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021

    The Australian Government has introduced a Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021 to protect Australians who use social media. Find out what measures are included in the bill and how it could help protect you from online trolls.

    Read more …

  • 7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?

    7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?

    The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd are in breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Learn more about the findings, implications, and how businesses can comply with the APP’s.

    Read more …

  • Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.

    Read more …

  • Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands

    Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands

    This article examines a Court decision that could have a significant impact on creditors making statutory demands. Learn more about the case of Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1042, and the implications for creditors, as well as relevant legislation and case law.

    Read more …

  • Can social media chat logs be documents in Federal Court?

    Can social media chat logs be documents in Federal Court?

    The Federal Court has addressed the hearsay rule exception of using a log from an instant messaging platform to prove the identity of the sender, date, time of the message, and contents of the statement.

    Read more …

  • Swiss company hands over user data

    Swiss company hands over user data

    A Court order in Switzerland raises questions about Australian law enforcement’s ability to access encrypted data. This article explores the legislative perspective on accessing private or business communications, and the steps taken to protect transmitted information.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend