Advertising in Canada is regulated under both federal and provincial jurisdictions. At the federal level, the Competition Act is the predominant statute governing advertising, which prohibits false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices. This includes claims about product performance, pricing and endorsements. Additional federal laws such as the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Food and Drugs Act and Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation regulate specific aspects of advertising, including health claims, packaging and electronic communications. In Québec, the Charter of the French Language mandates that advertising be predominantly in French, adding a linguistic layer of compliance for businesses operating in the province.

At the provincial level, each province and territory enforces its own Consumer Protection Act, which governs advertising and marketing practices within its jurisdiction. These laws typically address unfair practices, misrepresentations and consumer rights in the context of transactions with merchants or retailers. It should be noted that Québec’s consumer protection laws offer more robust safeguards for consumers than those found in other provinces.

In addition to statutory frameworks, Ad Standards Canada is Canada’s national, not-for-profit advertising self-regulatory body. It administers the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (the “Code”), which sets out the criteria for acceptable advertising across all media (except political advertising, and packaging and labelling).

At the federal level, the primary regulator is the Competition Bureau, which enforces the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act. The Competition Bureau possesses broad investigative powers, and its mandate covers both criminal offences (such as price-fixing) and civil matters (such as abuse of dominance and misleading advertisements). Remedies available to the Competition Bureau include voluntary compliance measures, significant administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) and private rights of action allowing individuals and businesses to seek damages before the Competition Tribunal. The AMPs under the Competition Act can now be up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the deception or, if this cannot be reasonably determined, up to 3% of a company’s annual worldwide gross revenues.

Provincially and territorially, consumer protection agencies oversee advertising compliance within their respective jurisdictions. These agencies enforce local consumer protection laws that address areas such as transactions between merchants and consumers, and various commercial issues such as credit disclosures, pricing transparency, warranties, unsolicited goods and promotional practices (eg, discounts, renewals, negative option, bait and switch). The provincial regulators can pursue investigations, issue warnings, recommend prosecution and, in certain provinces, issue administrative monetary penalties. For example, in Québec, the provincial regulator known as the Office de la protection du consommateur mandates that advertising must be in French and prohibits misleading representations and unfair business practices; it can issue AMPs in the amount of CAD3,500 for corporations – each day the violation continues may constitute a new violation for which another AMP may be issued.

In addition to these regulators, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) plays a role in enforcing the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation, which governs commercial electronic messages and prohibits misleading representations in digital advertising and the transmission of commercial electronic messages without consent. Violations can result in significant fines and reputational damage. The CRTC works in co-ordination with the Competition Bureau to ensure compliance across digital platforms.

Further, there are government regulators for various product sectors (eg, food, alcohol, natural health products, cosmetics, medical devices and toys) that generally prohibit false or misleading representations within their governing statutes. Violations of such acts can lead to investigations, recalls and fines.

Liability for deceptive advertising extends to any person, including influencers, endorsers or businesses (eg, retailers and distributors), making the deceptive representation.

At the provincial level, consumer protection statutes impose liability on businesses and individuals involved in advertising, which can include directors and officers of a corporation. In Québec, liability can even extend to third-party service providers or anyone who has disseminated the deceptive advertisement.

The Competition Bureau considers as an advertisement any form of representation to the public intended to influence a person to buy, use or consume a product or service, or to promote a business interest. The term “representation” has been interpreted broadly to include:

• verbal statements (eg, communications from sales representatives);
• illustrations or photographs;
• auditory or visual effects; or
• omission of a material fact.

Similarly, at the provincial and territorial level, advertising is broadly understood to include any representation – written, oral or visual – made to promote the supply or use of goods or services. This encompasses traditional media, digital platforms, point-of-sale materials and even product packaging.

In general, pre-approval is not mandatory for most commercial advertising in Canada. However, certain sectors and claims – especially those involving health products, food and beverages, cosmetics and advertising to children – are subject to voluntary or recommended pre-clearance. For example, Health Canada requires that advertising for prescription drugs and certain health products be reviewed by independent agencies such as the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board or Ad Standards. These agencies offer advisory opinions and pre-clearance services for a fee to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

Ad Standards, Canada’s leading not-for-profit advertising self-regulatory body, offers voluntary pre-clearance services across six categories:

• alcoholic beverages;
• children’s advertising;
• cosmetics, food and non-alcoholic beverages;
• responsible advertising to children; and
• health products.

While not legally required, broadcasters often require pre-clearance in these sectors before allowing the advertisement to air. Accordingly, advertisers often seek pre-clearance to mitigate risk and demonstrate compliance. Approved ads may feature the Ad Standards logo, signalling adherence to the Code.

The general rules governing the use of intellectual property apply to advertising.

The primary concern from an intellectual property perspective is that advertising content does not infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, most notably copyright or trade mark rights. A secondary concern is that the use of a competitor’s marks in making comparative claims – or even just for nominative purposes – could violate Canadian trade marks law.

In Canada, personality rights, which include the right to privacy and the right to publicity, protect the use of a person’s image and personal characteristics. These are common law rights that belong to the individual and which restrict the use of an individual’s identity (name, voice, likeness) for commercial purposes without their permission. Accordingly, it is important to respect these rights, and to seek permission before using an individual’s name, picture, voice or likeness in advertising.

Ad Standards oversees virtually all commercial advertising directed to the Canadian public, including print, broadcast, digital and out-of-home formats. The Code applies to any advertiser promoting goods or services. Certain categories – such as political advertising and product packaging – fall outside its jurisdiction. Ad Standards also provides pre-clearance services in regulated sectors such as alcohol, food, cosmetics and children’s advertising.

Ad Standards also operates two main complaint streams:

• consumer complaints; and
• competitor disputes.

For consumer complaints, the process begins with a submission from a member of the public. Ad Standards screens the complaint to ensure that it falls within the Code’s scope and is sufficiently detailed. If accepted, the advertiser is notified and invited to respond. In some cases, the advertiser may voluntarily withdraw or amend the ad, which would resolve the matter administratively.

If the complaint proceeds, it is reviewed by an independent Standards Council composed of industry and public representatives. The Council adjudicates based on the Code and the materials submitted. If a violation is found, the advertiser is asked to withdraw or amend the ad. If no violation is found, the complaint is dismissed. Both parties are notified of the outcome.

Competitor disputes are handled under a separate Advertising Dispute Procedure. This process involves written submissions from both parties and is adjudicated by a three-member panel. It is confidential and fee-based, with decisions typically rendered within two months.

Ad Standards does not impose fines or legal penalties. Instead, its remedies are corrective and reputational. If a complaint is upheld, the advertiser is requested to withdraw or revise the ad. Most advertisers comply voluntarily to avoid reputational harm.

Ad Standards publishes summaries of upheld complaints. If the advertiser complies promptly or is administratively resolved, the case is anonymised. If not, the advertiser is named in the public report. Ad Standards may also notify media outlets and digital platforms (eg, Google) to request removal of non-compliant ads. In cases of persistent non-compliance, Ad Standards may refer the matter to government regulators such as the Competition Bureau.

For online behavioural advertising, the AdChoices programme – run by the Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada – offers consumers transparency and opt-out options for interest-based ads. While these bodies are not legal authorities, their standards complement federal laws such as the Competition Act and Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, and complainants may still pursue legal action through courts if necessary.

Following amendments to the Competition Act that came into force this year, consumers in Canada now have a private right of action to challenge misleading advertising practices under the Competition Act. This expanded regime allows individuals and public interest litigants to bring civil claims before the Competition Tribunal for deceptive marketing practices such as materially false representations, unsubstantiated performance claims, drip pricing, bait-and-switch tactics and greenwashing.

Provincial consumer protection statutes provide a private right of action if an unfair practice – such as a false or misleading representation or another unconscionable representation – occurred during (or prior to entering into) a transaction with a consumer. Typically, consumers are entitled to cancel the contract, seek damages (including punitive damages) and initiate proceedings on a class-wide basis.

Canadian regulators have sharpened their focus on deceptive advertising practices, particularly in areas such as drip pricing, greenwashing, and false or misleading promotional pricing. These issues have drawn increased scrutiny from the Competition Bureau, which has launched several high-profile investigations and enforcement actions targeting companies that obscure true costs or make unsubstantiated environmental claims.

For example, in September 2024 the Competition Bureau imposed a record CAD38.9 million fine on Cineplex, Canada’s largest cinema operator, for deceptive “drip pricing” practices. This involved adding a mandatory CAD1.50 online booking fee to movie tickets purchased on Cineplex’s website, which was not disclosed upfront to consumers. The Competition Bureau found that this practice misled customers by advertising unattainable ticket prices, violating Canadian competition law. Cineplex has announced its plan to appeal the Bureau’s decision as well as the penalty amount.

Further, on 9 June 2025, the Competition Bureau took legal action against DoorDash Inc for promoting their online delivery service at a lower price than what consumers actually have to pay. A Competition Bureau investigation discovered that consumers were unable to purchase food at the advertised price due to the mandatory fees added to the cost at checkout.

Moreover, in the context of ongoing trade tensions between Canada and the United States, the practice of “maple-washing” – misleadingly branding non-Canadian products as Canadian, or misrepresenting the level of Canadian input – has come under increased regulatory and public scrutiny. This tactic, often used to capitalise on consumer demand for Canadian-made goods, undermines both consumer confidence and fair competition. Regulatory bodies, including the Competition Bureau, are paying closer attention to origin claims, especially when they are used to imply quality, safety or ethical standards associated with Canadian products. Misrepresentation of a product’s origin may now be treated as a form of false or misleading advertising, subject to enforcement under the Competition Act. Advertisers are expected to substantiate “Made in Canada” claims with clear evidence, such as domestic manufacturing or sourcing thresholds.

Canada’s official bilingualism has long shaped its advertising landscape, but recent regulatory changes – particularly in Québec – have significantly raised the stakes for compliance. Under Bill 96, which amends the Charter of the French Language, businesses operating in Québec must ensure that French is not only present but also presented on terms that are both equally prominent and no less favourable than the corresponding English (or other language) across a wide range of consumer-facing materials. This includes websites, product packaging, labels, advertising and product information.

Any generic terms or product descriptions included in trade marks (including registered trade marks) must now also appear in French. This change aims to curtail the practice of registering entire product labels as one “trade mark” to benefit from the exception that previously allowed trade marks to be reproduced without further translation requirements. Additionally, public signage and commercial advertising must feature French text in a manner that is “markedly predominant” (defined as taking up at least twice as much of the visual field) relative to any other language featured therein.

These changes reflect Québec’s broader push to ensure that French-speaking consumers have equal access to product information, and to more generally reinforce French as the dominant language in commerce and public life. For advertisers, this means not only translating content but also restructuring visual design and branding strategies to meet the new standards. Non-compliance may result in enforcement actions by the Office québécois de la langue française, including notices of violation and potential penalties.

Recent changes to the Competition Act, outlined in previous sections, have bolstered the regulatory framework around deceptive advertising in Canada. These amendments, which came into force in June 2025, have brought increased scrutiny to deceptive practices such as greenwashing, drip pricing and false promotional pricing.

In parallel, growing trade tensions between Canada and the United States have raised awareness in regards to “maple-washing” – the practice of falsely branding foreign products as Canadian, or misrepresenting the level of Canadian input (see 1.9 Regulatory and Legal Trends). As consumers increasingly associate Canadian origin with quality, safety and ethical standards, or seek out Canadian products in light of ongoing tariff wars, regulators have begun cracking down on misleading “Made in Canada” claims. Under the Competition Act, advertisers must now substantiate such claims with clear evidence, such as domestic production thresholds or sourcing documentation. This heightened enforcement reflects both a political and economic imperative to protect Canadian industries and ensure transparency in origin-based marketing.

In Canada, advertising claims are assessed for deception or misleading content under both the civil and criminal provisions of the Competition Act, as well as under the Code. The key legal standard is whether a representation is false or misleading in a material respect, meaning that it could influence a consumer’s decision to purchase or use a product or service. It is the overall general impression of the advertisement that must be considered to assess whether a representation is false or misleading. A claim or representation may be considered deceptive if it is:

• literally false; or
• creates a misleading general impression.

The Competition Bureau enforces the prohibition on false or misleading representations and evaluates claims across all media formats – including print, digital, audio-visual and oral communications. Specific practices that are targeted include:

• drip pricing (advertising unattainable prices due to hidden fees);
• greenwashing (environmental claims not backed by proper testing);
• fake sale prices (inflated “regular” prices to exaggerate discounts);
• unsubstantiated performance claims; and
• false “Made in Canada” origin claims.

The same standards under the Competition Act are mirrored in the consumer protection statutes across Canada.

In addition, Ad Standards applies Clause 1 (Accuracy and Clarity) of the Code. This clause focuses on the overall impression conveyed to the average consumer rather than the advertiser’s intent or technical legality.

In Canada, all advertising claims – express and implied – are subject to regulation under the Competition Act, consumer protection statutes and the Code. The key standard is whether a representation is false or misleading in a material respect, meaning that it could influence a consumer’s decision to purchase or use a product or service.

Express claims are considered direct statements made in advertising (eg, “100% Canadian”) while implied claims are those inferred from the overall impression created by an advertisement, including visuals, layout, imagery, third-party logos and context (eg, using the maple leaf symbol and/or the Canadian flag throughout an advertisement to suggest that a product is Canadian).

The legal standard used to assess any form of representation is the consumer’s general impression of the advertisement and its claims. It focuses on how a credulous and inexperienced consumer would interpret a claim – not just its literal meaning but also its overall context, including layout, visuals and disclaimers.

Claims that are objectively measurable – such as performance, medical benefit, environmental benefit or origin – must be supported by empirical evidence or testing based on industry-recognised methodologies. This testing must be adequate and proper or competent and reliable in relation to the claim being made, so that the claim is unlikely to be considered false or misleading. The Competition Bureau has intentionally maintained flexibility in the definition of adequate and proper substantiation for objective claims in order to respond to a wide diversity of industry standards. That said, the overarching requirements for any testing mean that it must:

• be conducted before the claim is made;
• be performed under controlled conditions to eliminate external variables;
• minimise bias;
• reflect real-world usage; and
• support the general impression conveyed by the advertisement.

On 20 June 2024, amendments to the Competition Act introduced new provisions specifically targeting environmental advertising claims. These changes require businesses to substantiate any claims about a product’s environmental benefits or a company’s overall environmental impact with adequate and proper evidence. Importantly, the burden of proof lies with the advertiser, and the substantiation must be based on an internationally recognised methodology. Please refer to 2.6 Environmental Claims for more details on the required substantiation for environmental claims.

Product demonstrations in advertising are subject to the same legal and ethical standards as other advertising claims. The demonstration must not be false or misleading when considering the general impression conveyed to the consumer.

For example, advertisers should not use exaggerated or hyperbolic claims while demonstrating or promising effectiveness or performance of a good that cannot be substantiated. Again, the general impression of the regular consumer will be the standard of whether a claim is false or misleading.

Testimonials and endorsements in Canadian advertising are regulated under the Competition Act, which requires advertisers to either use previously published endorsements or obtain written approval from the testimonial provider before publication. Endorsers must have actually used the product and their statements must reflect real experiences. Claims based on test results must be backed by empirical evidence, and expert endorsements must align with those results.

In addition, under the Code and the Competition Act, claims made by the endorser must be accurate and clear, and any testimonial must be genuine and based on actual experience.

Accordingly, advertisers must ensure that:

• testimonials remain accurate, clear and based on actual experience;
• the testimonial reflects typical use conditions and aligns with the product’s licence or terms of use (if applicable); and
• any material connection (eg, payment, free products, coupon, invitation to event, employment) is clearly disclosed (eg “#ad”).

Significant amendments to Canada’s Competition Act were enacted in June 2024, introducing (among other things) prohibitions that specifically target false, misleading or unsupported claims about the environmental benefits of a product, service or business. While greenwashing claims were always captured under the Act’s general false or misleading advertising framework, as a result of these amendments, the Act now requires that:

• claims concerning a product or service’s environmental benefits must be based on an “adequate and proper test”; and
• claims with respect to the “benefits of a business or business activity” for the environment must be based on “adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology”.

These greenwashing provisions introduced considerable uncertainty among businesses and other stakeholders, particularly the requirement that substantiation be in accordance with an internationally recognised methodology – an entirely new concept that was left undefined under the Act and had never been subjected to judicial interpretation.

In June 2025, nearly a year after the amendments came into effect, the Competition Bureau – the federal government regulator that enforces the Competition Act, including its deceptive marketing regime – issued guidelines (the “Guidelines”), providing welcome clarity on the Competition Bureau’s interpretation of these new provisions.

First, the Guidelines make clear that the Act’s deceptive marketing provisions, including the new greenwashing provisions, are intended to capture marketing and/or promotional representations made to the public “for the purpose of promoting a product or business interest”. In other words, where a representation is made “exclusively for a different purpose, such as to investors and shareholders in the context of securities filings”, the Competition Bureau is of the view that such claims fall outside the purview of the Act’s deceptive marketing provisions. However, where information contained in regulatory disclosures is then used in a business’s promotional or marketing materials, such claims will fall within the Competition Bureau’s likely enforcement scope.

With respect to the requirement that claims promoting the “benefits of a business or business activity” be substantiated in accordance with an “internationally recognized methodology”, the Competition Bureau considers a methodology that has been recognised in two or more countries to be “internationally recognised”, provided it results in adequate and proper substantiation. The Guidelines provide that the Act does not require businesses to use the “best methodology available” to substantiate claims and, where more than one internationally recognised methodology is available, any such methodology will meet the requirements of the provision. However, where a methodology is required or endorsed by a Canadian federal, provincial or territorial government, the Competition Bureau presumes that it is consistent with internationally recognised methodologies. As for representations about the environmental benefits of a product, the Guidelines adopt the principles established by the courts and previous guidance with respect to performance claims, which must similarly be adequately and properly tested prior to the claim being made.

Moreover, while the Guidelines confirm that the Competition Bureau will not hold anyone liable for breaches of the new greenwashing provision before they came into force, the Competition Bureau reserves its ability to bring enforcement action against claims made prior to June 2024 under the Act’s general provisions relating to materially false and misleading statements.

Lastly, the Guidelines provide that aspirational or forward-looking claims (eg, 2050 net zero claims) must also substantiated in accordance with an internationally recognised methodology and a realistic and verifiable plan to accomplish the objective, with interim targets.

The Guidelines offer up valuable guidance for businesses; however, they only represent the Competition Bureau’s interpretation of the new greenwashing provisions. As a result of amendments that came into effect in June 2025, private parties may now to seek leave to bring an action in respect of allegedly deceptive environmental claims before the Competition Tribunal. These private applicants seeking redress under the deceptive marketing provisions are not confined by the Guidelines.

Disclosures in advertising are subject both to industry-specific regulations and to general consumer protection laws in Canada. Sectors such as banking (eg, credit services), healthcare and pharmaceuticals have additional transparency requirements to ensure that consumers are fully informed.

With the rise of influencer social media-based marketing, advertisers should keep in mind that the Competition Act applies to any public claims made by influencers about goods or services. Influencers must clearly disclose any material connections – such as payments, gifts or partnerships – with the brands they promote. Ad Standards also published its Influencer Disclosure Guidelines to help advertisers and influencers meet their disclosure obligations under the Code. These include the following principles:

• in a post, widely accepted disclosure hashtags to disclose a material connection should be used, such as “#ad” or “#sponsored”, but influencers should avoid ambiguous acronyms or mentions such as “#brand” or “#collab”;
• disclosure hashtags should appear at the beginning of a post and should not be buried in a long list of other hashtags;
• a disclosure should catch the viewer’s attention and be located where it will not be missed;
• a disclosure should be in as close proximity as possible to every advertised message, and should not be available only via a link to another page or section of a website; and
• disclosure should be in the language of the endorsement and should specifically identify which products or brands are being promoted.

Aside from disclosing material connections, advertisers can also use disclaimers or footnoted information to convey additional or completing information to consumers. However, disclaimers cannot be used to correct the general impression of the main message or be used to include material information that should be stated in the main body. Otherwise, the advertisement can be challenged as false or misleading under the Competition Act or relevant consumer protection statutes.

The regulations that outline the requirements for specific claims such as “natural”, country of origin or “free” often depend on the nature of the product and whether such product is governed by a particular statute. For example, claims related to food, cosmetics, drugs and natural health products are governed by the Food and Drugs Act, which has a general prohibition on false or misleading representations or those that create an erroneous impression related to the food’s character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.

Further, government regulators have set regulatory guidelines interpreting the requirements of the statute. For example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency provides guidance on when “natural” can be used, typically requiring that the product be free from artificial ingredients and not significantly altered during processing.

Claims such as “free from” (eg, “sugar-free”, “gluten-free”) must be accurate and verifiable. For example, “sugar-free” must meet specific thresholds defined by Health Canada. These claims must not imply health benefits unless supported by evidence and must not mislead consumers about the product’s composition.

On the other hand, “free” when used in conjunction with price requires that the consumer obtain the product for free without incurring any fees. Of course, whether the claim “free” is determined to be false or misleading will depend on the overall impression of the advertisement, which is true in all cases – even for products regulated by specific statutes.

While there are no federal laws governing representation and stereotypes in advertising, the Code requires that advertisements not condone discrimination based on race, origin, religion, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability. They must also avoid promoting or appearing to tolerate violence, bullying or unlawful behaviour.

Additionally, advertisements must not demean or ridicule identifiable individuals, groups, organisations, professions or products. They should not undermine human dignity or promote attitudes that offend public decency without merit. The clause sets a clear standard for respectful and socially responsible advertising, aiming to protect individuals and communities from harmful portrayals.

In Québec, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination in all forms and the distribution, publishing or exhibiting of a notice, symbol or sign involving discrimination.

The province of Québec has the most stringent rules in Canada in respect of advertising to children. Under its Consumer Protection Act, commercial advertising directed at children under 13 is broadly prohibited across all media, including digital platforms, print and broadcast, subject to few exceptions such as store windows, displays, containers, packaging and labels. This includes restrictions on using child-oriented imagery, music, jingles, animated characters, comic strips, or suggesting that any product confers social or psychological advantage.

In addition, Ad Standards, Canada’s advertising self-regulatory body, began administering the Code for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children on 28 June 2023. This Code, along with its companion Guide, sets a national industry standard that restricts advertising of food and beverage products to children under 13 unless those products meet specific nutritional criteria. The Code recognises children as a vulnerable audience and requires advertisers to carefully consider how their messaging may impact young viewers.

Adopted in 2023 and currently proceeding through parliament, Bill C-252 is a key legislative development. It aims to restrict the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children under 13, particularly in digital and broadcast media. The bill is part of Health Canada’s Healthy Eating Strategy and is designed to reduce children’s exposure to advertising that promotes products high in sodium, sugars and saturated fats. While the bill does not target distributors such as internet service providers, it does empower regulators to act against advertisers, including foreign entities whose ads reach Canadian children.

Currently, Canada has not enacted a specific act or statute for dark patterns. However, dark patterns could amount to a violation of the federal Competition Act under Section 74.01 if the dark pattern creates a materially false or misleading representation. Some examples of dark patterns that could be false or misleading are countdown timer clocks or low-inventory-stocks alerts that are not accurate, or where the promotion associated with each continues past the end time or stock amount.

Recent enforcement actions and investigations signal that the Competition Bureau is actively scrutinising these practices, particularly in the context of e-commerce and digital advertising, as follows.

The Dufresne Group (TDG) Case (2023)

TDG was found to have used false urgency cues, including countdown timers and misleading sale end dates. For example, promotions labelled “40% OFF (Sale ends 19 Sep 2022)” remained active beyond the stated deadline. TDG also inflated regular prices to exaggerate discounts. The Competition Bureau deemed these representations materially misleading and imposed a CAD3.25 million penalty, along with a CAD100,000 cost award. TDG entered into a ten-year consent agreement and committed to a corporate compliance programme.

Investigation Into The Brick and Leon’s

The Competition Bureau has launched an ongoing investigation into similar practices at The Brick and Leon’s, including countdown timers, limited-time offers, and inflated regular prices.

While Canada lacks a dedicated dark patterns statute, the Competition Act’s deceptive marketing provisions offer a flexible and increasingly assertive enforcement tool.

As discussed in 2.7 Disclosures, under the Competition Act, any form of advertising – including influencer content – must disclose material connections between the promoter and the brand. This includes payments, free products, discounts, commissions or any other benefit provided in exchange for promotion. Failure to disclose such relationships can be considered deceptive marketing and may lead to enforcement actions by the Competition Bureau.

The Code reinforces these requirements. Clause 2 of the Code prohibits disguised advertising techniques, meaning that promotional content must be clearly identified as such. Clause 1 requires accuracy and clarity, and Clause 7 mandates that testimonials be genuine and based on actual experience. Non-compliance with these provisions of the Code can lead to consumer complaints to Ad Standards.

Under the Competition Act, “native advertising” must not be misleading. If the promotional nature of the content is not clearly disclosed, it may be considered a deceptive marketing practice. Similar to native advertising, the Competition Bureau did enforce against a major telecommunications provider for “astro-turfing” – specifically, misleading representations after employees posted positive app reviews without disclosing their affiliation. These reviews, which appeared on iTunes and Google Play, created a false impression of independent consumer endorsement. The Competition Bureau found that this violated Section 74.01(1) of the Competition Act and entered into a consent agreement with the telecommunications provider, which paid a CAD1.25 million penalty.

The Code reinforces the foregoing by prohibiting disguised advertising techniques. Clause 2 of the Code requires that advertising be clearly distinguishable from editorial content, especially when the format could confuse consumers into thinking the content is independent or journalistic.

Comparative advertising must comply with various laws, including the Trademarks Act, the Copyright Act, the Competition Act and provincial consumer protection legislation. There are also common law torts that address conduct where a comparative advertisement causes actual damage to the business of a competitor. As a result, there is inherent risk in comparative advertising in Canada, and this should be carefully assessed by legal counsel.

The use of competitors’ copyrights and trade marks remains a challenging area under Canadian law, as the Trademarks Act does not permit nominative or referential use of a competitor’s trade marks or the use of another’s trade mark for the purposes of making comparative claims. There are very few court decisions that address these issues, and the historical decisions that carry the most weight in this area are both restrictive and divisive. As a result, any comparative advertising using trade marks must be approached with caution, and should involve a thorough legal risk assessment.

The Competition Act allows for private access to the Competition Tribunal (with leave) to address conduct prohibited by the civil misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act, which include “greenwashing” and “drip pricing”.

There are also common law torts that address this type of conduct – for instance, trade libel/injurious falsehood, negligent misrepresentation, or passing off. A claim can be brought in provincial court on the basis of one or more of these torts. The Trademarks Act also prohibits false or misleading statements that discredit a competitor’s business, goods or services or that misrepresent the quality, origin or performance of their goods or services.

There are no special rules in this jurisdiction related to ambush marketing.

There are no specific rules that apply to social media advertising in Canada that go beyond the requirements described in this chapter, which apply to all advertisements (including in social media and online).

There is no liability for advertisers for the posting of third-party content.

See 2.7 Disclosures.

This topic is not applicable; no special rules or regulations apply.

Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation regulates the sending of commercial electronic messages (CEMs) to and from computers and mobile devices located in Canada. CEMs include emails and text messages. Opt-in consent, express or implied, is required before an organisation can send a CEM, although there are certain exceptions to this requirement for things such as existing business relationships. Form and substance requirements are applicable to the means by which consent is obtained and the CEM itself. All CEMs must include an unsubscribe mechanism.

Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation is considered one of the strictest anti-spam laws in the world, and violations can result in compliance orders and/or monetary penalties of up to CAD10 million.

The making of unsolicited telephone calls for marketing purposes are regulated under the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules (UTRs). The UTRs apply to unsolicited communications to individuals, and certain parts apply to unsolicited communications to companies. All telemarketers that make unsolicited calls must comply with the UTRs, including adhering to the National Do Not Call List (NDNCL), a list which an individual may register for in order to automatically be opted-out of receiving unsolicited telecommunications. Under the UTRs, an organisation must remove an individual from its call list upon request, and organisations must regularly update their call lists to exclude individuals who have registered for the NDNCL.

See 6.1 Email Marketing.

As amended in 2023, Québec’s private sector privacy law created new obligations for businesses that collect personal information using technology that includes functions allowing the person to be “identified, located or profiled”. This is likely to capture some behavioural advertising practices. It defines “profiling” as “collecting or using personal information to assess certain characteristics of a natural person, in particular for the purpose of analyzing that person’s work performance, economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests or behaviour”. Businesses that use such technology must first inform individuals of the following:

• the use of the technology; and
• the means available to activate the functions that allow a person to be identified, located or profiled (as all such functions must be defaulted to “off” pursuant to the law’s “privacy by design” requirements).

Generally speaking, personal information should not be collected from children under the age of 13, as they are unable to provide valid consent. Canadian privacy regulators encourage organisations to avoid the collection of personal information wherever possible, and, where it is necessary, to obtain parental consent.

This topic is not applicable; no other significant privacy rules apply.

In Canada, contests or sweepstakes must be structured in a specific manner to ensure that they do not violate the illegal lottery provisions of the Criminal Code.

In general, contests must include:

• an alternate method of entry that does not involve a purchase; and
• a mathematical skill-testing question.

Otherwise, the contest risks being classified as an illegal lottery, which can result in penalties including fines or imprisonment of up to two years. Pure skill competitions that require a purchase to enter are generally exempt from the illegal lottery provisions of the Criminal Code. To be considered a contest of pure skill, the winner must be determined solely based on the winner’s skill (eg, photography or writing contest). In other words, the competition should not involve chance. That said, if there is any question as to whether the contest is one of pure skill, sponsors most commonly continue to rely on the mathematical “skill-testing” question to mitigate risk.

The Competition Act also requires that minimum disclosures appear in contest advertisements such as:

• the prize description;
• prize value;
• regional distribution (ie, five prizes in BC and three prizes in Ontario);
• the odds of winning; and
• any other information that could materially affect an entrant’s chances of winning the prize.

The Criminal Code does not define a game of chance or a game of pure skill. Instead, these types of games have been evaluated and defined by the courts. In sum, the courts would consider a game to be of pure skill if there is no systemic resorting to chance and the elements of the game are within the player’s control – in other words, the outcome of the game are determined by the player’s skills, decisions and strategies.

On the other hand, a game of chance is one where the outcome of the game is outside the player’s control and there is a systemic resorting to chance.

There are no registration requirements for contests in Canada.

However, any business that wishes to offer a gaming product where payment is required to enter would be providing gaming/gambling services and would need to do so under a licence issued by the provincial gaming authorities. Ontario is currently the only province that allows private operators to provide internet gaming services to residents located in the province of Ontario. The remaining provinces only allow for gaming to be offered through provincial lottery corporations.

The claim “free” will be assessed by the general impression of the consumer. A product or service will be “free” if the consumer does not need to incur any fees or make a particular purchase to obtain the product or service.

Reduced price offers or sales are governed by the ordinary sale price provisions of the Competition Act, which requires that sale prices be substantiated. These are known as the “ordinary selling price” provisions, which can amount to a civil infringement where a supplier’s promotional conduct meets three cumulative elements:

• (a) the supplier makes a representation to the public;
• (b) the contents of the representation clearly specify a price that is identified as being the price at which the product has been or will be ordinarily supplied by that person (“Ordinary Selling Price”); and
• (c) the supplier has not sold a substantial volume of, or offered to sell, the relevant product at or above the Ordinary Selling Price for a reasonable time prior to or immediately after the representation is made.

In its guidance, the Competition Bureau has established parameters to govern part (c) of the test above, as follows:

• volume test – the Competition Bureau takes the position that the advertised Ordinary Selling Price must have been the price at which the product was sold for more than 50% of sales of the product within the 12-month period prior to the claim being made; and
• time test – the Competition Bureau takes the position that a “reasonable amount of time” means that the product in question must have been advertised at the Ordinary Selling Price for at least 50% of the time in the six months prior to the representation being made.

Further, consumer protection statutes in most provinces in Canada (eg, the Consumer Protection Act in Québec) also prohibit false and misleading representations about the price or regular price of products sold to consumers.

Automatic renewals and continuous service offers are regulated provincially under consumer protection statutes. Generally, recurring billing is permitted provided that the frequency and pricing are disclosed to the consumer in a clear and prominent manner. Failure to do so may result in the consumer claiming that they received unsolicited goods or services – an unfair practice that allows them to cancel the contract and, if a refund is not issued, pursue a private right of action.

Additionally, any material change to the price or nature of the goods or services may be treated as unsolicited unless such changes are explicitly contemplated in the subscription terms and advance notice is provided before the new charges apply. Certain categories of contracts, such as those involving personal development services (eg, gym memberships, educational programmes or health-related courses) are subject to stricter rules and a mandatory cooling-off period, and are generally prohibited from automatic renewal.

In Québec, specific restrictions apply to distance contracts (eg, cellphone services), which typically cannot be automatically renewed for terms exceeding 60 days.

No rules or guidance currently apply to the use of artificial intelligence in connection with advertising content development. The Competition Bureau recently completed a consultation on artificial intelligence’s impact on competition in Canada, which encompassed issues related to false or misleading representations and testimonials. Guidance and/or amendments to the Competition Act are expected to result from the consultation.

There are no special rules or guidance as relate to artificial intelligence; these types of claims are governed by the same rules as other claims – primarily, that they cannot be false or misleading.

There are no special rules or guidance related to chatbots, though this has been addressed by the courts. In Moffatt v Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149, an airline was found liable for negligent misrepresentations made by a chatbot available on its website.

In Canada, the advertising, marketing and sale of cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are subject to regulatory oversight when these assets fall within the definition of a “security” under applicable provincial securities laws.

If a crypto-asset qualifies as a security or derivative, its distribution and promotion must comply with securities legislation, including registration, disclosure and conduct obligations. The Canadian Securities Administrators, in collaboration with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, has issued Staff Notice 21-330, which provides detailed guidance for crypto-trading platforms on advertising, marketing and social media use. This includes prohibitions against misleading statements – such as suggesting that a platform is registered when it is not, or implying regulatory approval of products or services – and cautions against gambling-style promotions that may encourage excessive trading. Even where crypto-assets do not meet the definition of a security, advertisers must still comply with the misleading advertising provisions of the federal Competition Act.

In Québec, platforms facilitating the sale of cryptocurrency may be required to register with the Autorité des marchés financiers and meet additional disclosure obligations. Given the evolving nature of crypto regulation, advertisers should exercise caution and ensure that their promotional practices align with both securities and consumer protection frameworks.

Although Canada currently lacks legislation tailored specifically to metaverse advertising, existing regulatory frameworks – such as the Competition Act and the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards – may govern advertising activities conducted within virtual environments. Should Canadian consumers be targeted by a company’s advertisements, it is likely that Canadian advertising laws would be applicable.

Advertisers must ensure that claims made in the metaverse are not false or misleading and that the overall “general impression” of the advertisement is truthful and substantiated. This includes considering how consumers experience and interpret advertising in immersive environments, where visual, auditory and interactive elements may influence perception.

Additionally, advertisers must comply with the terms and conditions of the metaverse platforms they use, which often include platform-specific rules governing promotional content, user targeting and brand representation. As brands increasingly engage with consumers through virtual goods, NFTs and branded experiences in the metaverse, they must also be mindful of trade mark enforcement challenges, including the risk of virtual counterfeiting and the difficulty of identifying infringers in decentralised environments. Canadian advertising laws remain applicable and enforceable wherever Canadian consumers are targeted.

Alcohol

Advertising for alcohol is regulated at both the federal and provincial levels in Canada. Federally, rules apply when alcohol advertisements are broadcast via TV or radio, governed by the Code for Broadcast Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages (the “Broadcasting Code”), which is administered by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The Broadcasting Code prohibits depictions that appeal to minors or suggest that alcohol consumption leads to financial or social success, athletic prowess or goal fulfilment. It also bans the visual or audible portrayal of alcohol consumption. All broadcast alcohol ads must be pre-cleared by Ad Standards. Provincially, each jurisdiction has its own legislation governing alcohol promotion, applying to liquor licence holders, suppliers, manufacturers and anyone advertising alcohol – regardless of media format. Certain provinces apply the provisions of the Broadcasting Code to all alcohol advertising regardless of the media, and others impose a social responsibility statement in all alcohol ads. While rules vary slightly, most provinces prohibit advertising that targets minors, implies social or financial gain, or glorifies the effects of alcohol consumption. Lastly, in some provinces, such as Québec and Nova Scotia, alcohol advertisements must be pre-approved by the provincial liquor regulator before publication.

Tobacco and Vaping

Tobacco and related products – including vapes and nicotine pouches – are similarly regulated at both the provincial and federal levels. Federally, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, enforced by Health Canada, generally prohibits public advertising of tobacco and vaping products. It also bans misleading representations, endorsements (including fictional characters or animals), contests, rebates and similar promotions. Limited exceptions exist for “brand-preference” and “information” advertising, which must appear in publications addressed to named adults or in locations where youths are legally prohibited. In addition to federal restrictions, provincial regulations govern the content and display of tobacco-related advertisements, particularly within provincially licensed tobacco retailers.

Drugs and Medical Devices

The advertising and promotion of medicines, medical devices, and surgical or medical procedures is primarily regulated by Health Canada under the Food and Drugs Act, its associated regulations, and various policy directives. The term “health products” encompasses a broad range of categories, including medical devices, prescription drugs, natural health products, biologics and biosimilars, veterinary health products, and controlled substances such as opioids.

At its core, the Food and Drugs Act prohibits advertising that is false, misleading or deceptive, or that creates an erroneous impression about a product’s characteristics, value, performance or safety. Health Canada’s Guidance on the Distinction Between Advertising and Other Activities for Health Products further clarifies how promotional messaging is assessed, outlining the factors used to determine whether materials are subject to advertising restrictions. Certain products – such as opioids and some veterinary health products – require pre-clearance from Health Canada before marketing. Additionally, the terms of a product’s regulatory approval (eg, notice of compliance, drug identification number, medical device licence) dictate the scope of permissible claims and representations.

Foods and Beverages

The Food and Drug Regulations, under the Food and Drugs Act, set out specific requirements for nutrient content claims related to various nutrients, vitamins and minerals. Claims such as “free of fat”, “low in fat”, “fat free” and “reduced in fat” are strictly limited to the exact phrasing permitted by the Food and Drug Regulations, and the product must meet the prescribed compositional standards to support the claim. Separate standards apply to saturated fats, trans fats, and omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Similarly, carbohydrate and sugar-related claims – including “free of sugar”, “lower in sugar” and “no added sugar” – are restricted to those explicitly allowed under the regulations. Claims such as “source of complex carbohydrates”, “low carbohydrate” or “light” (when referring to sugar or carbohydrate content) are generally prohibited. Sodium and salt claims are also tightly regulated; while terms such as “free of sodium”, “low in sodium” and “sodium/salt reduced” are permitted under specific conditions, claims such as “very low sodium” are not allowed for foods sold in Canada.

Gaming and Gambling Services

The advertising of gaming and gambling services in Canada is governed by the federal Criminal Code, which prohibits the promotion of illegal lotteries. However, exceptions exist for gambling activities conducted and managed by provincial governments or licensed charitable organisations. If the activity is legally licensed by a province or municipality, its advertisement is also permitted – provided it complies with the advertising conditions set by the relevant regulator.

Ontario is currently the only province that allows private operators to offer internet gaming services, such as online casinos and sports betting, to individuals physically located within the province. These operators must obtain a licence from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and comply with its Registrar Standards for Internet Gaming. These standards prohibit public-facing advertisements that include offers, bonuses or inducements unless they appear on the operator’s licensed gaming site or are sent via direct communications (eg, SMS or email) with the recipient’s consent. Additionally, advertisements must not appeal to minors, be false or misleading, or suggest that winning is a likely outcome.

See 3.5 Special Rules for Native Advertising as relates to disguised advertising. In so far as advertisements feature product placement, claims or subliminal messaging, these elements may all be regarded as contextual factors in the evaluation of potentially misleading advertising.

There are many other sectors or products that may be subject to their own specific advertising requirements or have their own disclosure requirements, and that may be governed by a mix of federal, provincial and industry-specific regulations.

For example, the insurance and credit sectors are regulated under the Insurance Companies Act and the Bank Act, along with associated regulations such as the Cost of Borrowing Regulations and the Credit Business Practices Regulations. These rules require that advertisements for financial products clearly disclose fees, interest rates and terms, and prohibit misleading representations. Oversight is provided by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada.

In the automotive sector, advertising is shaped by both consumer protection laws and industry-specific standards. For instance, promotional claims about vehicle pricing, financing and warranties must comply with provincial consumer protection statutes and advertising codes. Dealers are often required to disclose all-in pricing and avoid bait-and-switch tactics.