If your business advertises a price, makes any environmental claim about a product or your operations, however small, "eco-friendly packaging," "carbon neutral shipping," "sustainably sourced," or displays a price that doesn't include every mandatory fee, the Competition Act now applies to you differently than it did four years ago, and differently again than it did twelve months ago. This is not a niche compliance issue for large advertisers. It is now enforceable by your competitors, your customers, and advocacy groups directly, not just the Competition Bureau.
Key Takeaway
Between 2022 and 2026, Canada added drip pricing and greenwashing to the Competition Act's deceptive marketing provisions, then, as of June 20, 2025, opened a sweeping private right of action letting individuals and businesses sue directly at the Competition Tribunal for monetary "disgorgement" remedies. In November 2025, facing business backlash over the greenwashing provisions specifically, the federal government proposed narrowing them, and those changes became law on March 26, 2026. The core rules on all-in pricing and general misleading advertising did not change. The environmental claims substantiation standard did.
The Three-Year Overhaul, In Brief
Four distinct waves of amendment, spread across nearly four years, add up to the most significant expansion of Canadian competition enforcement in a generation[1]. Drip pricing rules arrived first, in June 2022, making it a deceptive marketing practice to advertise a price that is not attainable due to additional mandatory fees. Greenwashing-specific provisions followed via Bill C-59, in force June 20, 2024. Then, on June 20, 2025, amendments expanding private access to the Competition Tribunal came into force, letting private parties, not just the Bureau, bring cases and pursue monetary remedies. Finally, Bill C-15, receiving Royal Assent March 26, 2026, narrowed the greenwashing-specific provisions in response to sustained business criticism[2].
The Full Timeline
Drip Pricing Added
Advertising a price not actually attainable due to mandatory fixed fees becomes a civil deceptive marketing violation.
Greenwashing In Force
Bill C-59 provisions require environmental benefit claims about a product or business activity to be substantiated per an "internationally recognized methodology," an undefined standard that the Bureau did not clarify with guidance for six to twelve months.
Private Right Of Action
Private parties gain the ability to seek leave to bring cases directly to the Competition Tribunal, including drip pricing, greenwashing, and abuse of dominance, with new monetary disgorgement remedies available.
Greenwashing Narrowed
Bill C-15 removes the "internationally recognized methodology" substantiation requirement and limits private actions specifically for greenwashing complaints.
Drip Pricing: What Actually Counts
The drip pricing rule, defined under subsection 74.01(1.1) of the Act, treats an advertised price as false or misleading if the consumer cannot actually obtain the product at that price because of additional, fixed, obligatory charges[3]. This is not limited to the airline and event-ticketing industries most associated with the term; a Federal Court of Appeal decision cited in recent competition law commentary confirmed the provision applies contextually, meaning any business advertising a headline price while tacking on mandatory (not optional) fees at checkout is exposed, regardless of industry[4]. This provision was not touched by the 2026 amendments. It remains fully in force, and, since June 2025, privately enforceable.
Greenwashing: The Substantiation Whiplash
Greenwashing enforcement predates the 2024 amendments. The Competition Bureau's $3 million settlement with Keurig Canada in January 2022, over recyclability claims for single-use coffee pods that were not, in fact, widely recyclable outside British Columbia and Quebec, was secured under the Act's pre-existing general misleading advertising provisions, plus an additional $800,000 charitable donation and $85,000 in investigation costs[5]. That case put every business making environmental claims on notice years before the specific greenwashing provisions existed.
Bill C-59 then added explicit, targeted greenwashing provisions, in force June 20, 2024, requiring that a claim about a product's environmental benefits, or a claim about a business or business activity's environmental, social, or ecological benefits, be substantiated in accordance with "internationally recognized methodology"[5]. Nobody, including the Bureau itself, offered a clear definition of what that methodology standard actually required for the first six to twelve months the rule was in force[6]. Facing genuine legal uncertainty and, after June 2025, the added risk of private litigation, many companies significantly narrowed or withdrew environmental marketing claims altogether rather than risk non-compliance with an undefined standard[4].
The "Fake Sale" Rules Nobody Talks About
Alongside drip pricing and greenwashing, the Act's ordinary selling price (OSP) provisions get considerably less attention despite applying to an enormous share of everyday retail and e-commerce marketing. The OSP rules exist to stop businesses from advertising an inflated "regular price" purely to make a "sale" price look like a bigger discount than it actually is, colloquially, the fake sale[4]. A price qualifies as a legitimate ordinary selling price only if a substantial volume of the product was actually sold at that price within a reasonable recent period, or if the price was offered in good faith for a substantial length of time.
This provision is now privately enforceable on the same terms as drip pricing, which matters for any retailer running frequent promotional pricing, "was $199, now $99" claims are exactly the kind of representation a private applicant, including a competitor, can now challenge directly at the Tribunal if the "was" price cannot actually be substantiated as a genuine prior selling price.
The Private Right Of Action
The June 20, 2025 amendments are, on any measure, the most structurally significant of the four waves. Before this date, only the Competition Bureau could bring most cases to the Competition Tribunal. After it, private parties, competitors, customers, advocacy organizations, can seek leave to bring their own applications covering civil misleading advertising (drip pricing, greenwashing, "fake sale" ordinary selling price claims), anti-competitive agreements whether or not the parties are competitors, and abuse of dominance[7]. To obtain leave, a private applicant's business generally needs only to be directly and substantially affected in part, not as a whole, a deliberately low bar[7].
The financial stakes changed too. Where the Tribunal finds grounds established, it can now order monetary payments to private applicants and other affected persons, capped at the benefit the respondent derived from the conduct in question, commonly described as a disgorgement remedy[7]. Legal commentary anticipated this would draw significant interest from advocacy groups and NGOs specifically for strategic greenwashing litigation[5], a dynamic the government's own Budget 2025 language later cited as part of its rationale for narrowing the greenwashing-specific private action.
Who Can Actually Bring A Case
The private right of action is not an automatic right to sue, it is a right to seek leave from the Competition Tribunal, a procedural filter intended to screen out weak or frivolous applications before they proceed to a full hearing[7]. To be granted leave, an applicant generally must show its business is directly and substantially affected by the alleged conduct, in whole or, notably, in part, a standard commentators describe as deliberately more permissive than earlier private-access regimes required[7]. Price maintenance claims are treated slightly differently, not requiring the same substantial-impact showing.
Once leave is granted and a case proceeds, the Tribunal can order both behavioural remedies (an order to stop the conduct) and, for the first time under this expanded regime, monetary remedies capped at the benefit the respondent derived from the conduct, distributable to the applicant and any other affected persons in whatever manner the Tribunal considers appropriate[7]. This monetary piece is what transformed the private right of action from a largely symbolic option, historically underused specifically because private parties could not recover damages, into a genuine financial incentive for competitors and advocacy groups alike to bring cases.
What Got Walked Back In 2026, And Why
Budget 2025, released November 4, 2025, stated plainly that the greenwashing provisions had "created investment uncertainty" and in some cases "slowed or reversed efforts to protect the environment"[8], an unusually direct admission that a consumer-protection measure had produced an outcome opposite to its intent. The government proposed two changes, framed as part of a broader "Climate Competitiveness Strategy": removing the internationally-recognized-methodology substantiation requirement, and removing the ability for private parties to bring greenwashing complaints directly to the Tribunal[8].
What actually passed in Bill C-15 was narrower than the initial Budget 2025 description suggested. The final legislation, receiving Royal Assent March 26, 2026, lowered the evidentiary burden for substantiating environmental claims (removing the rigid "internationally recognized methodology" language in favour of more flexible standards) and added a specific exemption under section 74.01(1)(b.2) limiting private actions for greenwashing complaints, intended to filter out low-merit "nuisance" claims filed mainly to generate publicity rather than remedy genuine harm[2]. General misleading advertising private actions, including those covering drip pricing and ordinary selling price claims, were not narrowed. Only the greenwashing-specific private action was curtailed[9].
Enforcement In Practice So Far
The Keurig case remains the clearest, most concrete illustration of what a real greenwashing enforcement outcome actually costs: a $3 million administrative monetary penalty, an $800,000 charitable donation, $85,000 in Bureau investigation costs, mandatory changes to product packaging and claims, and a public corrective notice campaign across the company's own channels[5]. That settlement predated the 2024 greenwashing-specific provisions entirely, brought instead under the Act's general misleading advertising rules, which is itself an important signal: businesses sometimes treat the 2024-2026 statutory changes as though they introduced greenwashing liability from nothing, when in fact the Bureau had already demonstrated both the legal basis and the appetite to pursue significant penalties years earlier.
What has notably not yet happened, despite the private right of action being in force since June 2025, is a private greenwashing case actually reaching the Tribunal. Professional commentary tracking the issue through the narrowing amendments in early 2026 confirmed no such case had been filed[8]. Whether that reflects genuine caution among potential private applicants, the practical difficulty of clearing the leave threshold, or simply that the mechanism is still new enough that cases are still being prepared, is not yet clear. It is not evidence that the risk is theoretical.
What This Means For Your Marketing Right Now
Three things are true simultaneously as of this writing. All-in, drip-free pricing remains mandatory, fully enforceable by the Bureau and, since June 2025, by private parties, with no change from the 2026 amendments. Environmental claims no longer need to meet the specific, previously undefined "internationally recognized methodology" bar, giving businesses somewhat more workable footing to substantiate claims through ordinary, reasonable evidence rather than an externally certified standard. Environmental claims remain fully actionable under the Act's general misleading advertising provisions, by both the Bureau and, for non-greenwashing-specific claims, private litigants, and greenwashing-specific private actions, while narrowed, are not eliminated, section 74.01(1)(b.2)'s exemption targets nuisance claims specifically, not all private greenwashing enforcement.
The practical upshot: this is meaningfully less risky ground than it was between June 2024 and March 2026, but "less risky" is not "no risk." An environmental claim still needs to be true and reasonably supportable. A price still needs to be the price a customer can actually pay.
Practical Compliance Steps
For any business advertising prices: confirm every mandatory fee, not truly optional add-ons, is baked into the headline price shown to consumers, across every channel, website, marketplace listings, and printed materials alike. For any business making environmental claims, however incidental: keep a documented, reasonable basis for the claim even though the rigid methodology requirement is gone, "reasonable" is still a standard the Bureau and courts will assess after the fact, not one you want to be constructing retroactively during an investigation or a private application. Review any existing marketing copy drafted specifically to avoid the 2024-2026 methodology requirement, some businesses over-corrected into vague, defensively hedged language that may now be unnecessarily conservative given the narrower 2026 standard, and may be worth revisiting for genuine claims you have real evidence for.
A Pattern Worth Recognizing
The greenwashing provisions' journey, enacted with real teeth in 2024, expanded with private enforcement in 2025, then narrowed by the same government within a year of that expansion taking effect, is a useful case study for anyone studying how regulation actually gets made and unmade in practice, not just how it reads on the day it passes. Budget 2025's own language, acknowledging that a consumer-protection measure had "slowed or reversed efforts to protect the environment," is a rare instance of a government publicly conceding that a specific enforcement design produced the opposite of its intended effect[8]. The undefined "internationally recognized methodology" standard is the specific design flaw usually cited: a legal requirement that sounds precise but that neither the Bureau nor the regulated community could actually operationalize for the better part of a year, is close to the textbook definition of a rule that generates compliance cost without generating compliance clarity.
For a business owner, the actionable lesson is less about environmental claims specifically and more general: a newly enacted compliance requirement that lacks clear implementing guidance is a genuine signal to watch for amendment, not necessarily a permanent fixture to build irreversible business decisions around. For a business student, it is a compact, well-documented example of the gap between a law's stated purpose and its operational design, and how quickly that gap can force a legislative correction once real businesses start operating under it.
The Key Dates At A Glance
For quick reference against your own marketing calendar: drip pricing became a civil deceptive marketing violation in June 2022. The Keurig greenwashing settlement, decided under pre-existing general provisions, was announced January 6, 2022. Greenwashing-specific substantiation requirements came into force June 20, 2024. The private right of action, covering drip pricing, greenwashing, ordinary selling price claims, anti-competitive agreements, and abuse of dominance, came into force June 20, 2025. Budget 2025's proposed narrowing of the greenwashing provisions was announced November 4, 2025, and became law when Bill C-15 received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a competitor or customer actually sue my business under the Competition Act now?
Do I still need to worry about drip pricing rules?
Did the government eliminate the greenwashing rules in 2026?
What's an example of a claim that could still trigger a complaint?
Has anyone actually been sued under the new private right of action yet?
References
- Kluwer Competition Law Blog. (2025). Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 – Canada. legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/main-developments-2025-canada
- Gowling WLG. (2026). Legislation passes to amend environmental claims prohibitions of the Competition Act. gowlingwlg.com/.../environmental-claims-prohibitions-competition-act
- Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. (2026, April 13). Private right of access for relief from anti-competitive harm now in force in Canada. osler.com/en/insights/updates/private-right-of-access-now-in-force
- American Bar Association. (2025, February). Misleading Advertising in Canada's Evolving Competition Law Landscape. americanbar.org/.../misleading-advertising-canada-competition-landscape
- Legal500. Greenwashing and Drip-Pricing Under Fire: Understanding the Latest Changes to Canada's Competition Act. legal500.com/guides/hot-topic/greenwashing-and-drip-pricing-under-fire
- BLG. (2025, July 9). Canada's greenwashing crackdown: New guidelines & private right of action. blg.com/en/insights/2025/07/canadas-greenwashing-crackdown
- Blakes. (2025, June 19). Canada Expands Private Litigation Regime Under Competition Act. blakes.com/insights/canada-expands-private-litigation-regime
- McMillan LLP. (2025, November 8). Greenwashing Update – Federal Budget and the Government Climate Competitiveness Strategy. mcmillan.ca/insights/.../greenwashing-update-federal-budget
- MLT Aikins. (2026, March 30). Federal government narrows scope of the Competition Act's anti-greenwashing provisions as Bill C-15 receives royal assent. mltaikins.com/insights/federal-government-narrows-scope-anti-greenwashing
This article reflects publicly available legislative text and professional commentary current as of publication and is provided for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice for any specific marketing claim or pricing practice. Confirm your own compliance position with legal counsel before relying on any interpretation in this article.