Why are you even asking this forum? If you read the post completely, you would know the poster quoted a customer comment with quotations and even supplied the link. Go ask Ellen. Or better yet, since you're talking like you're a Canadian Tire owner, why don't you make a friendly call to them and post your findings here.
How to get a refund from Canadian Tire - moneyville.ca Blogs
[17] It further follows that the Calgary store contravened section 7(2),
since an organization cannot require someone to consent to collection of
personal information that is not necessary.
[10] Section 7(2) of PIPA is also relevant to this case. It provides as
follows:
An organization shall not, as a condition of supplying a product or
service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use or
disclosure of personal information about an individual beyond what
is necessary to provide the product or service.
"Most"?
Do you mean "more than 90%"?
More than 75%?
50%"?
You've obviously done a thorough assessment of all the retailers who operate in Canada, before daring to make such a claim.
So, please provide your list of retailers who do and who don't require photo ID.
While you're at it, be sure to include retailers who, like Crappy Tire, have been found guilty of recording information that is in violation of the province in which they conduct business.
Thanks you!
In my opinion, I think a policy like that, and their poor attitude in requiring private customer information would discourage returns and go to profits.
Actually the law says that you can collect personal information for certain purposes. The investigator for the Calgary store OOPS concluded that it is reasonable taht for the prevention of returns fraud, name address and phone number, and viewing ID to verify said information is absolutely reasonable! Stated in the document. So yes law trumps policy, but the law has spoken and said the practice is reasonable for its purpose. JUST TO BE CLEAR ahaha
Secondly, it was not me, or anyone on here that got in trouble. Or all stores, or the Corporation. It was a single store that got in trouble, 3 or 4 years ago. Your blanket statements are tiresome. Just because one, doesn't mean all.
Really? You are 100% certain about that?
You absolutely, positively know who it was who "got in trouble", do you?
And you absolutely, with 100% certainly know for sure that not even ONE of those people are "on here"?
What do you do - monitor the internet usage of every single on of them, 24/7?
At their homes, businesses, iPads, and internet cafe visits?
Are you really saying that you do all that?
Are you sure you aren't just exaggerating just a tiny little bit?
Huh?
Bookmarks