Provincial governments continue to tighten consumer protection laws

In recent years, provincial governments across the country have bolstered and modernized consumer protection legislation, aiming to keep pace with evolving commercial practices. At the provincial level, both New Brunswick and Ontario have introduced overhauled consumer protection legislation (although such amended frameworks are not yet in force), while British Columbia, Québec and Manitoba have strengthened protections through amendments to existing legislation. 

What you need to know

• Canadian consumer protection regimes are undergoing a broad modernization shift, with provincial governments introducing reforms to address evolving digital practices, enhance transparency, and reduce barriers for consumers navigating contracts.
• Recent provincial amendments, particularly in British Columbia, Québec and Manitoba, expand consumer rights through tighter disclosure obligations and stronger cancellation rights.
• Regulators are increasingly targeting emerging risks in modern commerce, especially online transactions and data-driven pricing, with Manitoba introducing restrictions around algorithmic pricing.

British Columbia

British Columbia’s Bill 4, which amends the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) and largely comes into effect on August 1, strengthens consumer protection through restrictions around contractual terms and sales practices, enhanced disclosure requirements, new subscription and automatic renewal provisions, and limits on certain unilateral amendments.

Under the amendments, suppliers are prohibited from including provisions in contracts that prevent consumers from posting a review or similar communication online about the goods or services provided in a transaction, or the transaction itself. Additionally, suppliers can no longer require consumers to resolve conflicts exclusively through arbitration, nor can they prevent consumers from commencing a class proceeding or becoming a member of a class in a class proceeding.

New requirements are also introduced for “subscription contracts”, defined as a future performance contract for the supply of goods or services on a continuing basis that is not a fitness or other personal services contract, including with respect to renewal and unilateral amendment terms. Automatic renewal clauses for a term of longer than 60 days are void unless consumers (i) are given the right to cancel at any time (without penalty or delay and with a refund after renewal within 15 days) and (ii) receive clear advance notice, between 30 to 60 days ahead of the renewal, explaining when it will occur and how to cancel. Similarly, a provision in a subscription contract that provides for automatic renewal for terms of less than 60 days is void, unless it allows for the customer to cancel the renewal at any time , before or after the renewal date,without charge or penalty.

Additionally, suppliers are prohibited from unilaterally amending a subscription contract unless the specific provisions that can be unilaterally amended are clearly identified in the contract. Suppliers may not unilaterally amend provisions pertaining to cancellations, returns/exchanges, or refunds which reduce the obligations of the supplier or the rights of the customer. Should the supplier wish to exercise their right to unilaterally amend a provision, they must fulfil certain prescribed disclosure requirements and inform the customer of the change in a clear and comprehensible manner not less than 30 days and not more than 60 days before the unilateral amendment is to take effect.

The new provisions applicable to subscription contracts appear geared toward addressing conventional subscription-based services (such as streaming services) and preventing customers from inadvertently being locked into such contracts for lengthy terms and having their rights diminished. However, the potentially broad application of this legislation to other types of products and service contracts, including those provided by financial institutions, should be carefully considered.

In addition to the amendments relating to subscription contracts, Bill 4 streamlines contractual disclosure requirements to create a single disclosure standard for direct sales, future performance, time share, and distance sales contracts.

Québec

Québec's Bill 10, which amends the Consumer Protection Act (QCPA) and its regulations, was adopted by the National Assembly on June 12, and will come into force on September 12 (with certain exceptions). The amendments tighten the rules applicable to online commerce and ticket resale, impose new obligations for merchants in respect of successive performance contracts and online subscriptions, and introduce a declaratory provision requiring merchants to refund amounts collected from a consumer in contravention of the QCPA.

Under the Bill 10 amendments, merchants will be required to provide clear notices to consumers regarding the end of trial periods for successive performance contracts, and to more clearly disclose applicable non-recurring fees. Merchants offering online subscriptions must also provide an easily identifiable mechanism to cancel those subscriptions. These provisions reflect a legislative intent to ensure that consumers are not inadvertently locked into ongoing payment obligations without adequate notice or an accessible means of cancellation.

Bill 10 also tightens the legislative and regulatory framework governing the ticket resale market and introduces measures aimed at protecting consumers' freedom of expression.

Finally, it establishes a new obligation requiring merchants to refund amounts collected from a consumer in contravention of the QCPA, without prejudice to the rights and remedies already conferred on the consumer by the QCPA. For more information on Bill 10, read our recent bulletin.

Separately, Bill 24 was adopted and entered into force on June 12. Bill 24 amends the QCPA and the Regulation respecting monetary administrative penalties with respect to the Consumer Protection Act, and is primarily aimed at protecting consumers against commercial representations involving the use of a person's identity or image without their consent.

Bill 24, prohibits the use of a person's identity or image to make representations to a consumer without that person's consent. For the purposes of this prohibition, a person's image includes any image representing a person, whether altered or not, that represents or appears to represent that person, as well as any visual or sound recording of that person. This prohibition is notably broad in scope and appears designed to address concerns arising from deepfake and other AI-generated content in commercial representations.

Bill 24 also entrusts the President of the Office de la Protection du Consommateur with new powers to compel any person to cease engaging in a prohibited business practice, and to order the preservation of evidence in the context of an inspection or investigation. Where the representation concerns an activity governed by financial sector legislation, these powers are exercised by the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Autorité des Marchés Financiers. Non-compliance may result in penal sanctions or monetary administrative penalties.

The potentially broad application of these amendments, particularly in respect of online subscription services and AI-generated representations, should be carefully considered by suppliers operating in Québec, including financial institutions. For more information on Bill 24, read our recent bulletin.

Manitoba

While British Columbia’s Bill 4 focuses largely on clarifying contractual terms, and Québec’s Bills 10 and 24 address online commerce obligations and the use of AI-generated representations, Manitoba’s Bill 49, the Business Practices Amendment Act, focuses on price transparency, with an emphasis on personalized algorithmic pricing.

Personalized algorithmic pricing is defined as the use of an algorithm or automated processing to set, recommend, or vary a price offered to a specific consumer as a result of data about the consumer collected, analyzed, or processed with or without the consumer's consent. Such information can include the consumer’s browsing or purchase history, habits, spending behaviours, demographics, socio-economic status, and location.

Bill 49 deems the use of personalized algorithmic pricing to increase what businesses charge a specific consumer an unfair business practice. Notably, unfair business practices may occur through the use of algorithms, data analytics, machine learning, or artificial intelligence by the supplier or a third party—regardless of whether a transaction is in fact entered into or completed. The scope of this prohibition is broad, and it remains to be seen whether further details, including any exemptions, will be provided in regulations.

Bill 49, which was proclaimed into force on July 1, also amends the definition of “supplier” in The Business Practices Act to add online retailers and online distributors generally. Corporations found to be engaging in unfair business practices may be subjected to fines of up to $1,000,000 for repeat offences.

Presently, no other provinces explicitly prohibit personalized algorithmic pricing.

Takeaways

Certain provincial governments are enhancing consumer protections which they feel are needed as a result of new technologies, from subscription-based services and online commerce to algorithmic pricing and AI-generated representations. However, amendments to provincial consumer protection statutes continue to be inconsistent, and lack of harmonization remains. Suppliers operating across provinces, including financial institutions, will need to continue to be cognizant of the distinctions between frameworks and their implications.