MANDATORY BOOKING FEES AND DRIP PRICING: CINEPLEX’S APPEAL DISMISSED
by Andrée-Anne Perras Fortin and Victor Genevès*
ROBIC
LAWYERS, PATENT AND TRADEMARK AGENTS
On January 21, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”) dismissed Cineplex’s appeal against the Competition Tribunal’s (the “Tribunal”) decision rendered on September 23, 2024. The Tribunal had ordered the payment of an administrative penalty of $39.978 million for displaying a price that excluded mandatory booking fees when purchasing movie tickets online.
Legislative Context
Competition law regulates commercial practices in order to protect market integrity and ensure healthy competition between businesses.
The Competition Act (the “Act”) encourages businesses to be transparent and to provide the public with accurate information about their products and services. The Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) monitors the behavior of businesses, particularly in the advertising of the products or services they offer.
Among other things, the Act prohibits partial price indications, which consist of advertising a price that is in fact unattainable because the consumer must pay additional, non-government-imposed fees in order to purchase the product or service[1]. This deceptive trade practice is a recent addition resulting from amendments to the Act in June 2022. Although the Act already prohibited false or misleading representations about a material matter in the promotion of a product or service[2], there was no specific provision targeting misleading advertising of an unattainable price.
Cineplex’s Practice
Under this review power, the Bureau initiated proceedings against Cineplex in 2023.
Since June 2022, Cineplex has been charging a $1.50 reservation fee per ticket for online purchases. The advertised price does not include this fee: consumers only discover the total price by scrolling down the seat reservation page.
The Commissioner of Competition argued that Cineplex was making misleading representations and referred the matter to the Tribunal for a ruling.
The Competition Tribunal’s Decision
Cineplex argued that a distinction should be made between the price of the “movie ticket” and the additional service of “seat selection and reservation.” It also claimed that the fees were not mandatory since it was still possible to purchase tickets at the box office.
Cineplex’s arguments failed to convince the Tribunal, which ruled that this behavior constituted a deceptive marketing practice of partial price indication.
The Tribunal ordered the payment of an administrative penalty of $39.978 million and prohibited Cineplex from engaging in such practices.
Cineplex appealed the decision to the FCA, obtaining a temporary stay.
The Federal Court of Appeal’s Dismissal of the Appeal
Cineplex raised three main points before the FCA.
First, the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the overall impression and literal meaning of the price indications given. According to Cineplex, the average consumer has basic computer skills that enable them to understand the concept of scrolling through pages on a website. Therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the entire web page, including the text visible when scrolling, which provides the full price and all applicable terms and conditions and information.
Second, the Tribunal wrongly concluded that the price indications were partial. According to Cineplex, the prices indicated are achievable and do not constitute fixed or mandatory fees, particularly because consumers have a choice as to how they purchase tickets.
Finally, the order imposing the administrative monetary penalty was wrongly and disproportionately rendered.
The CAF rejected all of Cineplex’s arguments, confirming that the Tribunal had not erred on the points raised. It held that the price information was deliberately hidden due to the design of the website and the appellant’s application[3]. It also upheld the Tribunal’s characterization of the fees as fixed and mandatory, rejecting the appellant’s argument that the ticket price indicated on its website was achievable. Finally, the FCA concluded that the administrative monetary penalty was imposed within the limits provided for by the Act[4].
The Scope and Outcome of the Cineplex Case
Cineplex has expressed its intention to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal’s decision and the CAF’s dismissal of the appeal underscore the importance of transparency in the prices displayed and those actually paid by consumers. The Act, as revised in June 2022, allows the Bureau to investigate and bring a complaint before the Tribunal for misleading advertising practices involving an unattainable price. The CAF also reiterates the importance of the financial penalties that may be imposed under the Act.
The CAF also mentions that the Act is not a consumer protection law, but rather aims to “maintain the proper functioning of the market in order to preserve product choice and quality”[5]. It notes, however, that both the Act and the Consumer Protection Act deal with false or misleading representations made to the public. In conclusion, it should be noted that on September 2, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class action against Cineplex for the same commercial practices, but this time for the purpose of paying various damages under the Act and the Consumer Protection Act[6].
*Andrée-Anne Perras-Fortin is a Principal, Lawyer at ROBIC and Victor Genevès is an articling student at ROBIC.
[1] Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 74.01 (1.1).
[2] Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 74.01 (1) (a).
[3] Cineplex Inc. v. Commissioner of Competition, 2026 CAF 10, paras. 37, 114-118 and 129.
[4] Cineplex Inc. v. Commissioner of Competition, 2026 CAF 10, paras. 274-276.
[5] Cineplex Inc. v. Commissioner of Competition, 2026 CAF 10, para. 15.
[6] Overview of Class Action Application 500-06-001291-240 – Class Action Registry.
