Class-action lawsuit claims RateMDs violated Canadian doctors' privacy
A doctor in BC has filed a civil claim against RateMDs. She alleges it violated the privacy act by posting profiles of health professionals across Canada and rating them on their websites without consent.
In a decision posted online this week, a BC Supreme Court judge said the doctor met the requirements and certified the claim as a class proceeding.
Dr. Ramona Bleuler claims RateMDs violated health professionals’ privacy in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec.
Doctor’s profiles and rankings
The information on profiles included the health professionals’ names, websites, and contact information. They also had sections for rating the profile, reviewing the health professional, and commenting on the health professional.
Under the “reviews section” found on profiles, people can anonymously rate a health professional on four criteria (Staff, Punctuality, Helpfulness, and Knowledge), post comments about the practitioner, and “like” comments that have been posted.
There is also a relative ranking of health professionals compared to others in the field within a specified geographical area.
Where Bleuler argues her privacy was violated, she explained that RateMDs created profiles, solicited reviews, refused to verify the “accuracy or helpfulness of the reviews,” and then ranked health professionals against others based on those reviews.
No say in profiles
According to the court document posted Monday, Bleuler provided factual allegations that health professionals cannot remove profiles on RateMDs and are “used as part of a for-profit commercial enterprise by the defendants.”
While the site’s purpose is to help patients find a health professional, Bleuler suggested that the unverified reviews and rankings “may not even meet the defendants’ terms of use.”
“The website, she argues, is for commercial purposes and includes paid advertising from health professionals who would otherwise be restricted from ranking themselves against other health professionals, in addition to reviews in the nature of testimonials. Without the reviews and rankings, Ms. Bleuler claims that the website would have no commercial value,” the document reads.
Since the “unverified information” is being shared on this site, Bleuler said it “essentially requires health professionals to participate in the site to ensure the accuracy of those reviews and rankings.”
“The defendants do not check the reviews for compliance with their policies unless asked to do so by the health professional,” she claimed.
- You might also like:
- Looks like most Canadians want to ditch tipping and pay for higher service wages
- This Canadian province ranks as the angriest and no one is surprised
- Starbucks wins labour case against Canadian barista who tried to unionize
Additionally, Bleuler pointed out that the College of Physicians, Surgeons of BC, and other administrative regulators of health professionals ” restrict health professionals from using comparative advertising and place restrictions on the use of patient testimonials.”
“I find support for this view in the fact that health professionals are limited in their ability to respond to reviews on RateMDs.com that they consider to be a violation of privacy or damaging to their reputation without breaching patient confidentiality or violating restrictions on their advertising,” the judge said.
Defendants argument
Because RateMDs does not have any employees and is operated by VerticalScope, the defendants argued that “the pleadings do not encapsulate a pleading against the VerticalScope defendants because they are separate corporate entities.” However, the judge disagreed.
Additionally, the defendants argued that Bleuler’s pleadings “are too broad and conclusory to support a claim for punitive damages, and, as a result, this claim is bound to fail.”
The judge added they were not convinced the matter was as “cut and dry” as the defendants suggested.
“The determination of the distinction between ‘sales v. subject’ depends upon a detailed analysis of the purpose for which the health professionals’ names are used and whether the publication serves a public purpose,” they said.
While the judge certified the class action for health professionals in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, they declined for Quebec.
“In my view, subject to my comments on the claims under Quebec law, it is an adequate plan for the proceedings that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the proceeding,” the judge wrote.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Follow Channels and Categories