Author

David Gadsden

Browsing
David Gadsden represents global clients in complex commercial disputes. As chair of Baker McKenzie's Canadian class actions group and a member of the firm’s North America antitrust and competition practice group, David draws on his extensive class action experience, having defended clients in domestic and international class actions involving antitrust claims, misleading advertising, consumer protection, securities fraud, product liability and professional service negligence. David's competition class action experience includes acting as lead counsel in high-profile cases involving auto parts, computer components, loyalty rewards programs, consumer electronics, credit card transaction fees, generic pharmaceuticals and construction chemicals. He sits on the executive committee of the Ontario Bar Association class actions section and has been recognised by Benchmark Litigation, Legal 500, Best Lawyers Canada, Litigation Counsel of America and Lexpert's annual Guide to the Leading US/Canada Cross-border Litigation Lawyers.

CANADA – Allegations of “Add-on pricing”, or “drip pricing”, have become a hot topic in recent years as consumers have moved towards making more purchases online. Drip pricing can be thought of as the incremental disclosure of additional fees. Bit-by-bit, these add-ons can cause a discrepancy between the final price of an item and the original listed price. One common example is the addition of airline baggage fees, which can dramatically increase total airfare prices. Other examples of drip pricing include:

  • delivery fees for event tickets;
  • municipal taxes charged by hotels;
  • rental car insurance fees; and
  • bank withdrawal fees.

While the concept of drip pricing has existed for some time, the advent of e-commerce has given rise to increased litigation and regulatory risk for businesses selling online services and products. Website interface design allows businesses to be more flexible in how they display and structure their pricing, however, the same flexibility can lead to pitfalls, prompting consumers to respond with class proceedings based on allegations of deceptive marketing practices.

In October 2011, the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC“) raised the concept of offering no-contest settlements of the sort commonly employed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC“). On March 11th of this year, after receiving some sharply divided feedback in months of public hearings, the OSC announced that it was moving forward with the introduction of a policy that would permit settlement of enforcement proceedings without requiring an admission by the respondent of misconduct…