Guide · Retailers

Was, now, and sale
prices done right.

A crossed-out price is the strongest claim most furniture, appliance and mattress stores make, and it appears on the website, the Google listing, the flyer and every social post at once. The Competition Act decides when a "regular price" is real. Here is what it says as of November 2026, with the Competition Bureau's own tests and cases.

Published 2026-11-04 · Formory Marketing Group

Sections 74.01(2) and 74.01(3) of the Competition Act cover any representation to the public about the price at which a product has been, is or will be "ordinarily supplied", made by any means. Subsection (2) covers comparisons with what suppliers generally charge, such as "List price $100, our price $50". Subsection (3) covers your own regular price, such as "Our regular $100, now $50". A product page, a Google post, a paid ad and an Instagram story all count.

Two rules in section 74.03 make these cases easier to bring than owners expect. It is not necessary to show that anyone was actually deceived, and the general impression of the claim counts as well as its literal meaning.

A regular price is valid if it passes one of two tests. The Bureau's Ordinary Price Claims enforcement guideline gives the numbers. Volume test: more than 50% of sales were at or above the reference price, normally over the twelve months before (or after) the claim. Time test: the product was offered in good faith at or above the reference price for more than 50% of the time, normally over the six months before (or after) the claim. Either period can be shorter for seasonal products.

The guideline's own example: if a product sold 5% of the time at $100, 20% at $90, 30% at $80, 5% at $70 and 40% at $60 over twelve months, $80 can be quoted as the regular price, because 55% of sales were at $80 or more. $90 cannot. The six-month window rolls, so check the reference price again as months pass.

"Good faith" matters for the time test. In the Bureau's Deceptive Marketing Practices Digest, a retailer that shows "Regular $699" most of the year, makes no genuine sales at $699 and runs a $399 sale each quarter is unlikely to pass, even though $699 was on the tag for most of the time. The Bureau's ordinary selling price page, updated in December 2025, describes both tests as "usually within a year"; the guideline's twelve and six months are the more cautious figures.

The current text of section 74.01(3), in force since June 20, 2024, says a claim about your own regular price is reviewable conduct unless you establish that it passes the volume test or the time test. The Bureau had asked for exactly this in its submission on the future of competition policy, so that advertisers prove a discount is genuine. The enforcement guideline still quotes the older wording.

In practice, the proof is your own records: dates, prices, quantities sold and every promotion, which the Bureau's best practices tell businesses to keep. Section 74.1 lets a court order a corporation to pay up to the greater of $10 million ($15 million for a later order) and three times the benefit, or 3% of worldwide revenue if the benefit cannot be determined. No penalty is ordered if you show due diligence to prevent the conduct. Since 2024, a private party granted leave can also take a case to the Competition Tribunal.

The Bureau's page on fake urgency cues lists what it watches: a "limited time" deal that is still available after it ends, a countdown timer that resets, and stock or demand claims that never change. Its advice to businesses: do not run a sale for a long time or repeat it every week, and do not let a promotion continue past its stated end date.

In 2023, The Dufresne Group agreed to pay a $3.25 million penalty plus $100,000 in costs. The Bureau found inflated regular prices and deals that were still available after a countdown timer expired, on its websites, in store and in other advertising. In November 2024 the Bureau obtained a court order in its investigation of Leon’s and The Brick, covering sale end dates, possibly inflated regular prices, and sale claims that do not state the discount, with prices in a distinct font colour. The Bureau says there is no conclusion of wrongdoing.

A clearance sale can fail both tests and still be lawful, according to the guideline, if it is clearly marked as clearance, shows the original price and any interim prices, the original price was offered in good faith, and the goods are already in stock. In 2019 Hudson’s Bay agreed to pay $4 million plus $500,000 in costs over sleep sets: the Bureau alleged inflated regular prices and clearance promotions while products were actually being ordered from manufacturers as customers bought them.

A discount with no dollar figure is still a claim about a regular price. The Bureau's best practices warn against ambiguous, unverifiable savings claims even when the regular price is not stated, giving "20% off our regular price!" as the example. Nothing in the Act treats "up to 60% off" differently; it is judged by its general impression, so the sensible test is whether a shopper would find a real number of items at that discount.

"Was" (past), "regular" (current) and "after-sale price" (future) claims are all judged by the same tests. An after-sale price is treated as a promise that the product will go back up. The Bureau's advertising dos and don’ts also say not to call the manufacturer's suggested price a "regular price". The guideline accepts an MSRP shown without a comparison to your selling price, where it is prominently disclosed that the product may sell for less.

Under section 74.04, bait and switch is advertising a product at a bargain price without having it in reasonable quantities for your market, business size and the ad. The Act gives three defences: you took reasonable steps but events beyond your control stopped delivery; demand beat reasonable expectations; or you promised everyone who asked the product, or an equal or better one, at the bargain price, and kept that promise.

Section 54, double ticketing, is a criminal offence: you cannot charge more than the lowest of two or more prices you clearly express on the product, its label or a point-of-purchase display or advertisement. The penalty is a fine up to $10,000, a year in prison, or both. If your product page and checkout, or website and store tag, disagree, charge the lower price; the Bureau notes the rule does not apply once an old price is removed or obscured. Section 74.05 separately forbids charging more than the advertised price during the advertised period, except for a catalogue that warns of errors or an ad promptly corrected.

Section 14 of Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, 2002 makes a false, misleading or deceptive representation an unfair practice and lists examples. Three fit sale advertising: claiming a specific price advantage that does not exist (item 11), saying goods are available when you know or ought to know they are not (item 8), and exaggeration or ambiguity about a material fact that tends to deceive (item 14). Under section 17(2), one act is enough. Under section 18, a consumer who entered into an agreement after an unfair practice may rescind it and is entitled to remedies including damages. The 2023 Act that will replace it is not yet in force and keeps the same price-advantage item.

Show a regular price only where your sales records support it under one test, and keep those records by product. Put a real end date on every sale and switch the price back on that date; remove countdown timers that restart. Mark clearance only on stock you have, and update prices in feeds to Google and marketplaces too. If you add delivery or setup fees, our guide to drip pricing and showing prices online covers those. Our notes on websites for furniture stores cover the rest of the site.

This is a plain summary of the Competition Act, Bureau guidance and Ontario law as of November 2026, not legal advice.

• Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 — sections 54, 74.01, 74.03, 74.04, 74.05, 74.1
• Competition Act — version of section 74.01 from 2024-06-20
• Ordinary Price Claims — enforcement guideline, Competition Bureau
• Ordinary selling price, Competition Bureau (December 2025)
• Fake urgency cues, Competition Bureau
• Advertising dos and don’ts, Competition Bureau
• Double ticketing, Competition Bureau
• Bait and switch selling, Competition Bureau
• Taking the risk out of savings claims — Deceptive Marketing Practices Digest, Volume 4
• The Future of Competition Policy in Canada — Recommendation 4.2, Competition Bureau
• The Dufresne Group to pay $3.25 million penalty, Competition Bureau, 2023
• Hudson’s Bay to pay $4.5 million to settle Competition Bureau investigation, 2019
• Competition Bureau advances an investigation into Leon’s and The Brick’s marketing practices, 2024
• Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A — sections 14, 17, 18
• Consumer Protection Act, 2023, S.O. 2023, c. 23, Sched. 1 (not yet in force)

Or call (416) 989-3208. One of us answers; there is no sales team.

Showing Prices on Your Website in Canada: Drip Pricing Rules · Can You Ask for Google Reviews? Yes · Ontario Car Dealer Ads: All-In Price Plus HST and Licensing

All guides · Glossary · The GTA report · Pricing · Free site check

Check my website free Read the full GTA report

Start a project See our work