From First Price to Final Cost

In 2022, Parliament amended the Competition Act to prohibit drip pricing. Since then, class action plaintiffs and the Competition Bureau have been busy in bringing cases against businesses who they argue have "dripped" prices by failing initially to disclose all fixed and obligatory fees. Primary targets are businesses selling online through a multi-step checkout process.

Last year saw several new cases filed, and major decisions released, which primarily interpreted the drip pricing provisions in favour of the plaintiffs. This year promises even more decisions as plaintiffs and the Competition Bureau continue to test the contours of these relatively new provisions. Two recent decisions in the Federal Court shed light on how courts are beginning to consider alleged drip pricing claims both at certification and on the merits.

When is an "Unattainable Price" Represented?

The Competition Act deems the representation of a price that is not attainable due to fixed obligatory charges or fees to be a false or misleading representation. In Deane v. Canada Post Corporation, 2025 FC 1194, the Federal Court certified a drip‑pricing class action pleading that Canada Post failed to disclose a mandatory “fuel surcharge” until late in the purchasing process, shedding light on what that Court might consider to be a representation of an unattainable price even where the added fee was displayed at some point during the purchase process.

The transaction in Deane was completed by customers progressing through four sequential stages on a single webpage—origin, destination, package type and available service prices. A static summary box at the top of the page updated as the customer advanced through these stages, but the fuel surcharge appeared only after a service was selected, requiring the customer to scroll back up to see the increased total.

Therefore, the customer saw two prices during the transaction process: a first allegedly unattainable price at the fourth stage of the process where the shipping price was initially generated (despite Canada Post allegedly knowing what the "all in" price would be), and a second price in the static summary box that the customer would need to scroll up to view, which included the additional surcharge fee that the customer had to pay. The Court found this was sufficient for the purposes to certify a claim of alleged drip pricing.

When is a Fee "Fixed" and "Obligatory"?

Another component of drip pricing is that the additional fee must be "fixed" and "obligatory". In Deane, the Court held the fuel surcharge was obligatory because the customer had to pay it if they wanted to complete the purchase. The Court, however, declined to assess whether the fee was "fixed" at the certification stage of the class action and deferred the analysis to the merits stage where the judge would have a full evidentiary record.

In Cineplex Inc. v. Commissioner of Competition, 2026 FCA 10, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed that Cineplex's $1.50 online booking fee was fixed even though certain customers benefited from exemptions. The Court held that, if the variability of a fee is based on a pre-determined category the defendant sets, then the fee will be considered "fixed" even if different customers pay a different fee.

When Has a Person Suffered Damage as a Result of Alleged Drip Pricing?

Another requirement of alleged drip pricing is that the person suffered loss or damage as a result. In Deane, the Court rejected Canada Post's argument that, because a customer sees the final price before choosing to buy, the customer is not harmed. Such finding, the Court stated, would lead to an absurd result because, to sustain damages, customers must necessarily complete a purchase at the second higher price. The Court also accepted—at least for certification—that the damage is arguably equal to the difference between the first displayed price and the final price paid (difference being the fuel surcharge). The Court, however, described this as a novel issue better left for the trial judge.

Looking Forward

Deane is under appeal and is one of several drip pricing cases currently under judicial and regulatory scrutiny that will be decided in 2026 and further define the scope of drip pricing. Two others include the Commissioner of Competition's cases against DoorDash and Canada's Wonderland. These and other pending cases should shed more light on the central question in drip pricing cases: how must fees be disclosed to customers? Defendants argue that they disclose the fixed and obligatory fees to customers as required; the Commissioner and plaintiffs argue that the disclosure was insufficient (although not entirely absent).  Time and the outcomes of these pending cases will provide guidance on what qualifies as proper disclosure. 

If you have further questions about this update or class action litigation more generally, please contact the authors or a member of the Class Action Litigation group.