Federal Court Refuses to Certify “Reverse Class Action” Against Indeterminate Number of Canadians
Last week, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an unusual “reverse class action” brought by a group of film production companies (collectively referred to as “Voltage”) against a potentially indeterminate number of Canadians
in respect of alleged peer-to-peer file sharing of Voltage’s copyrighted films. The decision in Voltage Pictures, LLC et al. v Robert Salna et al., signals an unwillingness to allow copyright holders to pursue unnamed individuals for
alleged infringement without clear evidence they are properly named as defendants. The Court declined to rely on evidence of IP addresses allegedly used to share the films on the basis that a person holding an address may not be the one using
it for the alleged infringement.
Background
In its application to certify the class action launched in 2016, Voltage alleged that its copyrights in five films – including The Cobbler and American Heist – had been infringed by the respondent class members’ illegal uploading and
downloading of the films using peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.
The road to the Federal Court’s decision on certification involved a number of procedural steps, including a trip to the Supreme Court (see our October 30, 2018 Update, Who Foots the Bill? Notice-and-Notice, Norwich Orders and Compliance Costs). In 2015,
Voltage used evidence identifying an IP address that uploaded the films to a “BitTorrent” sharing network, to obtain a Norwich order compelling Rogers Communications Inc. to disclose the internet subscriber’s identity using that
IP address. The identified subscriber became the first representative respondent named in the class action. He denied having infringed Voltage’s copyrights and could not say whether the IP address in question had been compromised by other
users.
Pursuant to the Copyright Act, copyright can be infringed through either primary infringement, by making use of a work in a way that only the owner has the right to, or secondary infringement, by selling, distributing, or exposing for sale an
infringing good that the secondary infringer knows (or should know) infringes a copyrighted work.
The proposed class included all natural persons residing in Canada who were internet account subscribers whose IP addresses were detected by Voltage’s forensic software. The persons captured would be either a “direct infringer”
(a person who was making the films available for download over a peer-to-peer network or advertising that they were available for download) or an “authorizing infringer” (a person who controlled an internet account and failed to take reasonable
steps to prevent the actions of direct infringers, such as internet service providers (ISPs)).
Voltage alleged infringement of its copyrights by the direct and authorizing infringers in one of three ways:
- offering films for download over peer-to-peer networks;
- advertising the film as being available for download; or
- failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the first and second acts of direct infringement did not take place
Voltage faced resistance from the representative respondents and from the intervening Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, who raised issues with the notion of identifying direct infringers based on IP addresses, given evidence that an
internet user may not consciously decide to offer a file for download or advertise that it is available. They also argued the notion that ISPs and others who “control” internet accounts should be responsible for infringement by subscribers
or those who use their IP addresses is flawed.
Federal Court’s Decision
To have its class action certified, Voltage was required to meet the five conditions set out by Rule 334.16 of the Federal Court Rules:
- Its pleadings needed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
- There had to be an identifiable class of two or more people against whom the claim was brought
- Common questions of law or fact had to exist against those people.
- A class action had to be the preferable procedure to resolve the common questions in a just and efficient way.
- There needed to be a representative party who would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and have a plan for proceeding on behalf of other class members, among other things.
The Federal Court found Voltage failed to satisfy any of these conditions and thus its action could not proceed.
Among the Federal Court’s findings were the following:
- Voltage’s argument that a cause of action existed against ISPs for providing internet access to persons making copyrighted works available for download was an “overly broad reading” of the Supreme Court’s earlier comments about what it meant to “authorize” an infringement.
- Voltage’s assertion that it identified thousands of IP addresses used to allegedly infringe its copyrights was insufficient to constitute a basis for the existence of an identifiable class, since the nexus between an IP address and a person actually infringing copyright while using that IP address was a highly technical and uncertain determination.
A class action was not the preferable procedure because Voltage’s forensic software was only capable of identifying IP addresses, but the determination of who was using the IP address at the given time was an individual – not common – issue. Further, relying on the notice-and-notice regime (designed for ISPs to notify users to cease infringing activity if detected) to facilitate a large-scale class proceeding would unfairly overburden ISPs and result in an unmanageable class procedure.
Future Cases
Despite Voltage’s unsuccessful certification attempt, there may be a place for reverse class actions where the cost of defending meritorious litigation can be spread across many small defendants. In the three reported reverse class actions
that were successfully certified, the key feature (and one which distinguishes them from the Voltage claim) was the limited number of identified defendants and the existence of a claim against each of them, such that the claims were more efficiently
adjudicated together. The disincentive for defendants to participate in the action is the inherent challenge in deploying the class vehicle in reverse, but in the proper case that disincentive might be moderated.
Authors
Insights
-
Privacy and Data Protection
B.C. Court Rules Facebook Liable for Privacy Violations in Class Action
Another chapter in the now decade-long saga of Douez v. Facebook was penned earlier this month as a British Columbia Court found Facebook liable for providing advertisers access to users… -
Arbitration - Domestic and International
Supreme Court Expands Unconscionability Doctrine To Invalidate Uber's Arbitration Clause
The Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller on June 26, 2020. The majority found that the arbitration agreement in Uber’s service… -
Class Actions
Clarity Emerging in Data Breach Class Actions and the Risks Are High
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court suggests that judges are increasingly willing to certify class actions brought in respect of data breaches. That willingness, when combined with the… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Ontario Government Proposes Significant Changes to the Class Proceedings Act
The Ontario government this week introduced the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2019 (“Act”). In addition to other broad changes, the Act, which has not yet become law, contains significant… -
Class Actions
Supreme Court of Canada Allows Environmental Class Action Seeking Only Punitive Damages to Proceed
The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard and dismissed an appeal in the “dieselgate” pollution class action case, Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. v. Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution… -
Class Actions
Federal Court Refuses to Certify “Reverse Class Action” Against Indeterminate Number of Canadians
Last week, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an unusual “reverse class action” brought by a group of film production companies (collectively referred to as “Voltage”) against a potentially…
News & Events
-
Banking and Financial Services
Goodmans Recognized in the Inaugural Edition of Best Law Firms - Canada 2025
Goodmans is delighted to share we are featured in the inaugural edition of Best Law Firms - Canada 2025, recognizing us as one of the country’s exceptional law firms across 40 industries and practices… -
Banking and Financial Services
The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2024 Continues to Recognize Goodmans
We are proud to announce Goodmans LLP has once again been recognized in the 2024 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory.91 Goodmans lawyers have been recognized as top-tier in their… -
Banking and Financial Services
The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2023 Continues to Recognize Goodmans
We are proud to announce we have once again been recognized in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2023.85 Goodmans lawyers have been recognized as top-tier in their fields and leaders across…