Montessori Academy of London: Legal Risks in Privacy Policy Exposed | Erayaha

## Revealing the Hidden Legal Risks in Montessori Academy of London's Privacy Policy

When we examined Montessori Academy of London’s privacy policy, our analysis revealed several critical legal and logical gaps that could expose the school to significant regulatory fines, litigation costs, and reputational damage. For example, under Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the EU’s GDPR, non-compliance can result in penalties up to $100,000 CAD per violation or €20 million, respectively. Below, we detail four key issues and actionable improvements.

1. Ambiguous Consent Mechanism Could Trigger Regulatory Fines The policy states that consent for data collection may be implied unless the individual notifies the Registrar otherwise. This approach is inconsistent with evolving privacy standards, which increasingly require clear, affirmative consent—especially for sensitive information. If challenged, this ambiguity could result in regulatory scrutiny and fines.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

Obtaining Consent: Informed consent is required for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. Such consent maymust be expressed or impliedexplicit and affirmative, particularly for sensitive information, and obtained prior to any data processing. TheImplied consent will not be implied as an employee of the school or applicant/enrolled family unless the individuals notify the Registrar otherwiserelied upon except where permitted by applicable law and only for non-sensitive data.

Legal Explanation

The original clause allows for implied consent, which is insufficient under PIPEDA and GDPR for most personal data, especially sensitive categories. The revision mandates explicit, affirmative consent, reducing regulatory risk and strengthening enforceability.

2. Lack of Data Retention and Deletion Policy Increases Litigation Risk There is no explicit clause specifying how long personal information is retained or the process for secure deletion. Without a defined data retention schedule, the school risks non-compliance with PIPEDA and GDPR, both of which require data minimization and timely deletion. This omission could lead to enforcement actions or costly class-action lawsuits.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

There is no explicit clause specifying how long personalData Retention and Deletion: Personal information iswill be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the identified purposes or as required by law. Upon expiry of the process for secure deletionretention period, data will be securely deleted or anonymized in accordance with industry standards.

Legal Explanation

The absence of a data retention and deletion policy creates compliance gaps with PIPEDA and GDPR, both of which require data minimization and secure deletion. The revision provides a clear, enforceable retention schedule.

3. Incomplete Disclosure of Third-Party Data Sharing While the policy references sharing information with the Ontario Ministry of Education and legal teams, it lacks a comprehensive list of all third parties or categories of third parties with whom data may be shared. This lack of transparency can result in regulatory penalties and erode trust with parents and staff.

Legal Analysis

medium Risk

Removed

Added

Use and Disclosure of Information: Personal information will not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except instances such as but not limited to: legal team representing the school, to collect debt owed to the school; to comply with legal requests (government,required by law enforcement or other investigative body); or for emergency purposes when consent is not available in a timely way. In the caseA comprehensive list of student records, the school will exchangeall third parties or categories of third parties with whom personal information with the Ontario Ministry of Education in ordermay be shared will be provided to assign, update and validateindividuals at or before the Ontario Education Number and the personal information associated with themtime of collection.

Legal Explanation

The original clause fails to provide a comprehensive disclosure of all third-party data sharing, which is required for transparency under PIPEDA and GDPR. The revision ensures individuals are fully informed about data recipients.

4. Insufficient Complaint Resolution Timeline and Remedies The complaint process does not specify a resolution timeline or available remedies for unresolved complaints. This exposes the school to prolonged disputes, regulatory intervention, and potential damages for failing to provide timely redress.

Legal Analysis

medium Risk

Removed

Added

Complaint process: An individual dissatisfied with the manner in which the school has handled their personal information, may contact The Executive Director in writing to outline their concerns. The Executive Director will investigate withacknowledge receipt of the Registrar and respond to all complaints made in relation to this policycomplaint within 10 business days, complete the investigation within 30 days, and notifyprovide a written response outlining the individual of the outcome and available remedies. If unresolved, individuals will be informed of their right to escalate the investigation, and correct any compliance problems identifiedcomplaint to the relevant regulatory authority.

Legal Explanation

The original clause lacks a clear timeline and escalation process, which can lead to prolonged disputes and regulatory intervention. The revision introduces defined timelines and remedies, improving accountability and compliance.

Conclusion: Proactive Legal Safeguards Are Essential Our analysis highlights that Montessori Academy of London’s privacy policy contains several preventable legal risks. Addressing these issues can help avoid regulatory fines, litigation costs, and reputational harm. Proactive legal review and redlining are essential for educational institutions handling sensitive data.

This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For actual legal guidance, consult with a licensed attorney. This assessment is based on publicly available information and professional legal analysis. Refer to erayaha.ai’s terms of service for liability limitations.

Are your organization’s privacy practices audit-ready? How would a regulatory investigation impact your operations? What steps can you take today to strengthen legal compliance?