A PYMNTS Company

First constitutional challenge to civil penalties for misleading advertising

By  |  January 30, 2012
First constitutional challenge to civil penalties for misleading advertising

Rogers has made constitutional arguments in response to the Competition Bureau’s allegations that Rogers misled consumers in its performance claims for the Chatr cell phone. The claims are that Chatr has “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers”; the Competition Bureau has taken the view that such claims are unsubstantiated and cannot be substantiated because dropped call rates are not disclosed by new entrant cell phone carriers.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Rogers claims that the civil performance claim provision of the Competition Act contravenes freedom of expression as under the Charter. Furthermore, Rogers adds, the penalties for civil misleading advertising, which were recently revised to be as large as $10 million for corporations, are penal in nature, and thus, unconstitutional without procedural protections. As such, Rogers brings the first constitutional challenge to these revised penalties.

    Source: Competition Bureau Press Release