Every November and December, Canadian consumers are bombarded with “holiday sale,” “door crasher,” and “one day only” offers across social media, email, and websites. For influencers, founders, and digital brands, these campaigns are often the busiest and most profitable of the year. They also sit squarely in the Competition Bureau's core enforcement priorities: misleading advertising, drip pricing, ordinary selling price claims, and scarcity-based urgency tactics.

The primary federal law that governs misleading advertising in Canada is the Competition Act (the Act). It applies to representations made to promote both products and business interests, and it applies equally to holiday discount campaigns, seasonal marketing funnels, and creator-promoted discount codes. In parallel, provincial consumer protection statutes, sector-specific laws, Canada's anti-spam legislation (CASL), and industry self-regulation (for example, Ad Standards and the Canadian Marketing Association) also shape how holiday marketing must be structured.

This post gives a high-level, holiday-focused overview of how the misleading advertising rules in the Act apply to common seasonal tactics, including discount claims, drip pricing, urgency cues, and influencer campaigns, and how those rules interact with provincial consumer protection law and industry codes. It is information only and does not replace legal advice about any specific campaign.

The Act contains both civil and criminal provisions that prohibit materially false or misleading representations made to promote a product or business interest. In holiday marketing, this framework applies just as much to a Black Friday landing page or “Holiday Sale” reel as it does to a national TV campaign.

Several core ideas are especially important for holiday campaigns:

Drip pricing has become one of the Bureau's top deceptive-marketing priorities, and holiday sales are a common context where it appears. Drip pricing refers to advertising a headline price that cannot actually be obtained because mandatory fixed fees are added later in the purchase flow. Classic examples include:

These charges often only appear late in the checkout, long after a consumer has anchored on the headline price.

Since 2022, the Act has contained both civil and criminal provisions that expressly prohibit drip pricing. Amendments in June 2024 now make it clear that, apart from amounts imposed directly by legislation (for example, sales tax), mandatory charges must be baked into the upfront advertised price rather than “dripped” at the end. The definition of drip pricing now explicitly covers representations of prices that cannot be obtained due to compulsory charges, with only narrow exceptions for truly government-imposed amounts.

Recent enforcement actions have focused on sectors where online checkouts are common and fees are frequently layered in late in the process, such as ticketing, subscription services, and platform-based transactions. The same structural issues arise in festive bundles, subscription discounts, shipping “deals,” and digital products advertised as “only $X” when unavoidable fees are added later.

For brands and creators promoting holiday offers, the practical takeaway is that the real total price—including all fixed non-tax charges that a consumer must pay—should be disclosed upfront, not left to the last step of the funnel. If a campaign advertises “Holiday Special: $10/month” but the consumer cannot actually buy the service for $10 before tax because of mandatory platform fees, the campaign may fall within the drip pricing provisions.

Holiday marketing often leans heavily on “sale,” “regular price,” “event pricing,” and percentage-off claims. The Act contains specific ordinary selling price (OSP) provisions that restrict when a business can claim that a product is being sold at a discount from a “regular” or “original” price.

These provisions are intended to prevent inflated regular prices that make holiday discounts appear more generous than they truly are. To justify a “regular price” reference, a seller must generally meet either:

Seasonal campaigns often test these boundaries, especially when a business is almost continuously on sale from mid-November to early January. If a product has rarely been sold at the touted “regular” price, or if the “regular price” only exists on paper while the product is constantly offered at a discount, OSP rules may be triggered.

Recent amendments have also shifted certain burdens of proof onto businesses. For a seller's own regular price claims, the Act now places more onus on the seller to substantiate that an OSP statement complies with the volume or time tests. That makes it riskier to rely on loosely documented pricing histories when crafting “Holiday Sale—Regular $200, Now $99” messaging or similar “was/now” framing.

For digital brands and influencers, any reference to a “regular price,” “compare at,” or “original” should be grounded in actual past pricing behaviour, not simply used as marketing decoration. Holiday-specific bundles or limited-edition products should be assessed carefully to determine whether any reference price is defensible under the OSP provisions.

Digital holiday marketing often leans heavily on urgency and scarcity to drive conversions: countdown timers, “only a few left in stock,” “offer ends at midnight,” “X people are viewing this item now,” and similar cues. While the Act does not prohibit urgency in itself, it does prohibit false or misleading representations, and scarcity-based urgency cues are treated like any other claim.

The Bureau has highlighted that automated or software-generated messages about low availability, limited time, or high demand can be misleading if they bear little relation to actual stock levels or campaign duration. If a “24-hour flash sale” is repeatedly extended, or a countdown resets every time a user loads the page, the general impression can be deceptive even if a technical defence can be articulated.

In a holiday context—where consumers are rushed, emotional, and under social pressure to buy gifts—the general impression test takes on added weight. An offer that visually suggests immediate scarcity (blinking clocks, bold “last chance” messaging, warnings of imminent price increases) should reflect reality. If the campaign is scheduled to run for weeks, or stock is not genuinely constrained, the “urgent” framing may veer into misleading territory.

For creators who participate in affiliate campaigns or share brand-supplied graphics, there is an additional risk that their own posts repeat scarcity cues the brand cannot substantiate. The Bureau has signalled that influencers can be implicated where they make or endorse misleading claims. Holiday urgency messaging should therefore be approached with the same care as traditional advertising copy.

The Act does not create a separate regime for influencers. Their posts are treated as marketing representations where they promote the supply or use of a product or a business interest. Around the holidays, this typically includes “gift guide” content, “what I bought my family” posts, and discount-code promotions for seasonal collections.

Two strands of law intersect here:

If a creator promotes a holiday sale that promises a broad percentage discount on “everything with my code,” but the code applies only to certain items, does not offset mandatory fees added later in checkout, or reduces an inflated “regular price” that was rarely charged, both the brand and the creator may face risk. The question is not only whether the discount is real but whether the overall impression of the offer is accurate, given drip pricing and OSP rules.

Performance claims in social media posts—implied promises about speed, durability, or results—may also need to be supported by adequate and proper testing when they go beyond subjective opinions. Holiday content often blends aesthetic praise with subtle performance claims (“this serum transforms your skin in days”), and those claims are not exempt from scrutiny simply because they are wrapped in festive packaging.

Misleading advertising under the Act can lead to significant consequences. Under the civil deceptive-marketing provisions, courts and the Competition Tribunal can order businesses to stop the conduct, publish corrective notices, pay restitution to affected consumers, and pay substantial administrative monetary penalties. For corporations, maximum penalties can reach into the tens of millions of dollars or a percentage of worldwide revenues, depending on the circumstances and statutory thresholds. For individuals, civil penalties can also be significant. Under the criminal misleading advertising provisions, the stakes are higher still, with potential fines in the court's discretion and imprisonment.

In addition, private parties can bring actions seeking damages where criminal provisions have been breached, and legislative changes effective June 2025 expanded the ability of private applicants to seek leave to bring civil misleading representation cases before the Competition Tribunal in the public interest. This means deceptive holiday pricing strategies could be challenged not only by the Bureau but also by private litigants.

Not every discount code or advent-calendar post may need a formal legal opinion. But there are predictable points in the holiday cycle where involving a lawyer can save time, money, and reputation.

It is worth getting legal advice where you are:

A lawyer who understands competition, advertising, and consumer-protection rules for digital business can help you solidify your holiday messaging, adjust your pricing disclosures, and build internal sign-off processes so that next year's campaigns start from a compliant baseline rather than from scratch.

If you decide to work with a lawyer, it helps to look for someone whose day-to-day practice actually sits at the intersection of competition, advertising, and digital business rather than general corporate work. In practical terms, you may want to prioritize lawyers who:

For Founders Law is a Toronto-based law practice built specifically for influencers, founders, and digital brands. The firm regularly advises on Canadian advertising and marketing law, including Act deceptive marketing issues, influencer disclosure rules, social media contests, and online terms and policies for digital businesses.

If you are planning holiday or new-year campaigns and want your pricing, discount language, and creator partnerships to align with Canadian law, For Founders Law can review your drafts, help you structure compliant offers, and develop repeatable templates for future campaigns.

Contact [email protected] or book a free consultation here.

This post provides general information about Canadian law as of December 2025. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining advice about your specific holiday campaign or pricing strategy. If you would like tailored guidance for your influencer business, digital brand, or seasonal promotions, consider speaking with a lawyer who practices competition, advertising, and consumer protection law in your jurisdiction.