In this particular case in the report from the commissioner, it was a multi-month engagement with the commissioner's office on what was an exceptional instance of an advertiser not following the policies we had instituted on our advertising platform. It took some digging to identify what the Canadian complainant had seen and where, and how that had expressed itself in the ads they had seen. It was a challenging experience for us, but it was also a learning experience both for us and for the privacy commissioners.
The reason I stated to Mr. Kelly that the answer was no is that every one of the examples from previous reports of major significance that have been brought up today has had an impact and has resulted in behaviour change on the part of the company. Winners came up 10 years ago, and that had a tremendous impact on TJX, the parent company, and on Winners' attitude towards privacy controls.
The Globe24h.com case was an example of the current framework evolving as it should, in that there was no reaction to the report of the Privacy Commissioner, so the Privacy Commissioner went to the Federal Court and got an order, and the website was taken down.
At the moment, there are bad apples, and there are people who don't respond in a timely manner, but for companies like ours, the opportunity to engage with the privacy commissioners and work through both the technical and the privacy policy-based nature of the complaint in a very honest and transparent way, without the possibility of an administrative order or a monetary fine being produced as a result of that frank and open discovery, is a benefit. It's a really constructive engagement, especially in a space that is fast-moving, where you can discover individual occurrences that have extreme personal impact but don't have a broader implication like the one you mentioned.