A Facebook group administrator has been ordered to pay $7,500 in damages after refusing to provide a tenant with access to personal information potentially posted about them. The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled that the closed group, “Bad Tenants, Fresh Zealand (Landlords Only),” breached the Privacy Act.
The Dispute Over ‘Undesirable’ Lists
The group reportedly allowed members to exchange information regarding former tenants and publish lists of individuals deemed “undesirable.” Adam Sheehan, the complainant, became aware of such groups through news articles in 2021.
Concerned that former landlords might have shared false or exaggerated information, Sheehan sought to determine if such data had caused him tenancy difficulties. He requested this information from the group and one of its administrators, Wayne Wilson.
After his requests were ignored and he was subsequently blocked from the group, Sheehan filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. Despite an access direction from the Commissioner requiring the release of the information, the group failed to comply.
Legal Findings and Penalties
During the proceedings, Wilson claimed that no information was kept on the server about anyone other than the group’s members. He further stated that he was no longer the administrator and would remove his name from the page.
Following these events, the group’s name was changed to “Landlord Property Mangers Seeking Tenants Advice.” However, the Tribunal found that Wilson breached the Privacy Act by failing to respond to the initial request.
The ruling established that privacy laws apply to social media users, administrators and the groups themselves. Wilson was ordered to pay $7,500 for Sheehan’s “anxiety and distress” and was required to finally respond to the information request.
Broad Implications for Social Media
Greg Robins, Director of human rights proceedings, described the decision as a “costly reminder” that social media users are not exempt from privacy legislation. He emphasized that sharing personal details on social platforms is legally no different than sharing them via email.
The ruling suggests that administrators and members of such groups must comply with the Privacy Act, particularly when individuals request copies of their own personal information.
Potential Future Developments
This ruling may lead other social media administrators to review how they handle personal data to avoid similar penalties. It is too possible that more tenants may seek legal recourse if they suspect their information is being shared in closed “blacklist” groups.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Wayne Wilson ordered to pay the damages?
The Tribunal found that Wilson breached the Privacy Act by failing to respond to Adam Sheehan’s request for information. Because the group was not a legal entity, Wilson acted as the representative defendant for the group’s 3,100 members.
What was the purpose of the “Bad Tenants, New Zealand” group?
The closed Facebook group was used by members to exchange information about former tenants and publish lists of those they considered “undesirable.”
What happened after the Privacy Commissioner intervened?
The Commissioner issued an access direction requiring the group to release the information. When the group did not comply, the complainant brought a claim to the Human Rights Review Tribunal to enforce the direction and address the breach of the Privacy Act.
Do you believe social media administrators should be held legally responsible for the content shared by members in closed groups?
