Overview
In June 2022, Canadian lawmakers added drip pricing provisions to the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 as part of its overhaul of Canada’s competition regime. Drip pricing refers to a deceptive marketing practice where a company advertises a price that is not attainable due to fixed obligatory charges or fees other than those imposed by the federal or provincial legislature such as a sales tax.[1] The Competition Act also contains prohibitions against double ticketing, which occurs when a company advertises two prices for a product and charges the higher of the two.[2]
In July 2025, the Federal Court of Canada certified a drip pricing class action for the first time in Deane v. Canada Post Corporation, 2025 FC 1194 but declined to certify the plaintiff’s double ticketing claim. The Federal Court provided important guidance on the drip pricing framework under the Competition Act and clarified the difference between drip pricing and double ticketing.
Background
The Competition Act creates statutory causes of action which allow private individuals to recover damages for harm suffered due to criminal conduct prohibited by the Act,[3] including drip pricing and double ticketing offences.
In this case, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s online services failed to disclose the full price of shipping by later adding a “fuel surcharge”.[4] The Plaintiff claimed damages under the Competition Act and sought to certify the action as a class proceeding on behalf of herself and others who used the relevant online services platforms and who paid the fuel surcharge.[5]
Federal Court Decision
Drip Pricing
The Federal Court certified the drip pricing cause of action. The Federal Court found that the claim met the low certification standard, namely, it disclosed a reasonable cause of action and that it was not plain and obvious that the Plaintiff’s claim was doomed to fail.[6]
The alleged misconduct involved three of the Defendant’s online platforms which were used by small businesses, commercial customers and individuals. The Defendant allegedly imposed fuel surcharges ranging from 13-26% of the price of the shipping service.
The allegations arise from the Defendant’s online purchasing form. Users would complete the form by entering shipping details, and the Defendant’s website would then display generated prices for various shipping service options without the fuel surcharge. Once the customer selected a shipping service, the Defendant’s website would display a summary box with an updated price breakdown including the fuel surcharge, as well as any discounts, the pre-tax total, estimated taxes and the estimated total.[7] The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s failure to add the fuel surcharge to the price of the shipping service options constituted impermissible drip pricing.
The Federal Court found that the summary box “discloses a second price with the fuel surcharge only after users have selected a service displayed at a first price in box number 4” and that it was “arguable that the fuel surcharge is “added” to the first price disclosed in box number 4” contrary to the drip pricing prohibitions under the Competition Act.[8]
Similarly, the Federal Court found that the Plaintiff had pleaded the necessary elements to claim loss or damage as required by section 36 of the Competition Act, concluding that it was “arguable that, because of the “drip pricing” conduct, the customer suffers loss or damage equal to the difference between the unattainable price and the price paid.”[9]
Double Ticketing
The Federal Court declined to certify the double ticketing claim.
To make out the offence of double ticketing under section 54 of the Competition Act, there must be i) the supply of a product or service by a person; ii) at a price that exceeds the lowest of two or more prices; iii) expressed on the product, on anything attached to or accompanying the product, or on any point of purchase display or advertisement; iv) at the time the product or service is supplied.[10]
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to both drip pricing and double ticketing. The Court agreed with the Defendant that it was plain and obvious that the Plaintiff’s double ticketing claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The Court noted that although “one can imagine a situation where a merchant would be in breach of both subsection 52(1.3) and 54 from a single offering”, there were contradictions in the Plaintiff’s position.[11] The Court explained that “one cannot say that Canada Post is, on one hand, adding price elements as the sale process unfolds, and, on the other hand, charging the higher of two or more prices.”[12] Double ticketing involves the latter (charging the higher of two or more prices that were presented simultaneously) and not the former (adding price components through the purchase process). The alleged conduct in this case could not amount to both.[13]
More generally, the Federal Court observed that criminal drip pricing would not occur: (1) where the fee is not “fixed”; (2) where the fee is not “obligatory”; or (3) where the fee represents an amount imposed by acts of Parliament or provincial legislatures. The double ticketing provisions do not contain those exceptions. If conduct described in the drip pricing provision also amounted to double ticketing, then the exceptions would be rendered meaningless because there would always be an offence, even if one of the exceptions applied.[14]
Key Takeaways
- As one of the few cases considering the new drip pricing prohibitions under the Competition Act, the Federal Court’s certification decision in Deane provides important guidance to litigants on the framework of a drip pricing class action including the differences between the offences of drip pricing and double ticketing.
- That said, the Federal Court deferred some issues to an eventual merits hearing, contributing to remaining uncertainty about drip pricing cases. For example, the Court did not provide definitive guidance on the question of what “fixed” means. The Defendant argued that the fuel surcharge was not fixed because it varied per transaction, whereas the Plaintiff suggested that “fixed” meant “non-negotiable.”[15] The Court deferred, writing that there was “no precedent on this specific issue which, […] is better left to the judge hearing the merit of the case with the benefit of a full evidentiary record. It is a novel issue, yet an arguable one.”[16]
The Deane decision is part of developing drip pricing and double ticketing jurisprudence in Canada. The Court in Deane noted that the parties spent a significant portion of their argument on three cases: the Federal Court’s decisions in Lin v Airbnb, Inc, 2019 FC 1563 and Zanin v Ooma, 2025 FC 51 , as well as the Competition Tribunal’s reasons in Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Cineplex Inc, 2024 CanLII 93716 (CT) , 2024 Comp Trib 5. While the Lin case has settled, the decisions in Zanin and Cineplex are currently under appeal. Alongside those cases, any appeal decision from the certification motion in Deane should further clarify the law around drip pricing and double ticketing.
[1] Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 52(1.3) (“Competition Act”).
[3] Competition Act, s. 36(1)(a).
[4] Deane v. Canada Post Corporation, 2025 FC 1194 at para 2 (“Deane”).
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.