Originally Posted by
Far Siren
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.
IANAL, but could it be possible AC has anticipated potential blowback, so push for something beyond what they could defend and offer a small consolation later to quell any complaints? Give the customers a "win", perhaps by offering exactly what you suggested: One last year of same, or approximate, benefits. But wait for the likes of Gabor to talk first?