This case is about consent requirements for intimate images on porn platforms.
LEAF is intervening before the Federal Court.
Facts
The complainant made an intimate video with her boyfriend. After she broke up with him, she learned that he uploaded the video to porn websites, which were operated by Aylo (then known as MindGeek).
At the time of the complaint, Aylo only required uploaders to attest—not prove—that everyone in an intimate image had consented. No direct consent was required. The takedown process for non-consensually shared intimate images was also extremely onerous and required separate requests for every posting on each website.
The complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). The OPC found Aylo in violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and has applied to the Federal Court to enforce its recommendations.
Arguments
LEAF will be intervening to argue that PIPEDA must be analyzed through a substantive equality lens. This means the Court needs to acknowledge the disproportionate impact—including serious and irreparable harm—of non-consensual distribution of intimate images (NCDII) on women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. The gendered and grave harms of NCDII must play an integral role in determining the appropriate consent requirements for organizations who profit from intimate images, like Aylo.
Outcome
A hearing date has not yet been set for this case.
LEAF is grateful to be represented pro bono by Molly Reynolds, Nic Wall, Allyson Reid Taylor (Torys LLP) in this case. Rosel Kim (Senior Staff Lawyer, LEAF) is also representing LEAF.
LEAF’s interventions are guided, informed, and supported by a case committee with expertise in the relevant issues. We are grateful to this intervention’s case committee members (in alphabetical order): Moira Aikenhead, Suzie Dunn, Claire Feltrin, Nasreen Rajani, and Yuan Stevens.
