Originally Posted by
flyingcrooked
Not sure why you think damages are required or that a lawsuit is what I was talking about, and you are mistaken if you think that a company can advertise one thing and offer another just because they have some terms and conditions that say they can. This is relevant:
https://competition-bureau.canada.ca...ting-practices
Moreover, although I am not a lawyer I would guess that AC is bound by national laws elsewhere when it advertises there, e.g. in the UK it would have to content with the Advertising Standards Authority and with Trading Standards.
I think
flyingcrooked is making a valid point here. I'd love to hear what legal minds think insofar as the Competition Bureau is concerned.
1. AC has advertised a certain product in the first half of 2025, i.e. "if you achieve super elite status this year you will be able to award 50K status to someone or select to have 50 eUps at the beginning of 2026."
2. Customers likely engaged in purchasing behaviour during this time in line with what AC advertised.
3. AC chose not to honour what they were initially advertising by unilaterally altering the rules.
Can this not be considered bait & switch?
AC could have avoided this issue by letting everyone select their usual select benefits as advertised one last time before the new parameters kicked in. They could have even set an earlier selection deadline (Jan 31, 2026 or similar) and if you haven't selected your benefits by then you forfeited them.
I think there might be an interesting angle here.