CANADA – In Godfrey v Pioneer, 2019 SCC 42 (“Godfrey”), the Supreme Court of Canada has lowered the bar for certifying price-fixing class actions brought under the federal Competition Act, while also allowing new categories of claimants to participate as class members. The decision arose from a class action filed in British Columbia against a group of 42 foreign companies who manufactured optical disc drives and related products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired…
UNITED KINGDOM – A significant development in UK class actions landed today – with the English Court of Appeal issuing a judgment that requires the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) to reconsider certification of an opt out class action issued against Mastercard on behalf of approx 46.2m people and valued at Ā£14.098bn.Ā The judgment is published in full here and provides strong guidance to the CAT, indicating that a collective proceedings order will now be…
CANADA ā Allegations of āAdd-on pricingā, or ādrip pricingā, 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:
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.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently reconsidered itsĀ decision (the “Original Stay Appeal”) to stay a securities class action claim in Canada, on the basis that Ontario was not the most appropriate forum, where the securities at issue were purchased on foreign stock exchanges. Leave to appeal the Original Stay Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. In its most recent decision the Court of Appeal considered an argument that the Original Stay Appeal…
CANADA – In a recent post we described the Ontario Court of Appeal’s finding, in Kaynes v. BP, PLC, that Ontario was not the most convenient forum for a class action commenced by an Ontario resident who had purchased the defendant’s securities on the NYSE. The claim alleged market misrepresentation under section 138.3(1) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5. The proposed class included those who purchased securities on the TSX, NYSE and LSE…
In October 2011, the Ontario Securities Commission (āOSCā) raised the concept of offering no-contest settlements of the sort commonly employed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (āSECā). 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…
French President Francois Hollande has signed off on a proposal by French lawmakers that would allow consumer class actions for the first time in France. Unlike the United States āopt-outā class action system, the French system will require individual consumers to opt in, within a two to six month window after a judge issues a liability finding. The French parliament will receive a report after 30 months evaluating how the system has worked, and whether…