Cineplex lawyer defends online booking fee disclosure at drip pricing appeal hearing

Cineplex theatre at Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto on Monday December 16, 2019. The Competition Tribunal erred in ruling Cineplex Inc. misled theatregoers by not immediately disclosing an online booking fee, a lawyer for the theatre giant argued at the Federal Court of Appeal on Wednesday. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Aaron Vincent Elkaim

The Competition Tribunal erred in ruling Cineplex Inc. misled theatregoers by not immediately disclosing an online booking fee, a lawyer for the theatre giant argued at the Federal Court of Appeal on Wednesday.

Cineplex is appealing a tribunal decision from September 2024 related to the fee of up to $1.50, which some customers had to pay for booking their tickets online.

The Competition Bureau, which triggered the case in 2023, said the practice amounted to drip pricing -- where a low price draws people in before they’re caught off guard later in the checkout process by fees that cause their total to climb.

Cineplex has maintained it was upfront about the charges, which could be avoided by purchasing tickets at a theatre.

Lawyer Linda Plumpton told a three-judge panel that Cineplex was transparent about the fee and that the tribunal misapplied the relevant legal test about whether it sufficiently disclosed all pricing information to customers.

• Latest updates on company news here

She said moviegoers could find that information by scrolling down a web page when purchasing movie tickets online.

Plumpton referred to various legal precedents, including one involving a previous FritoLay promotion for a free giveaway inside its chip bags.

In that case, the company was accused of violating competition rules because a disclaimer that not every bag contained the giveaway was listed on the back of its packaging, rather than the front face where the promotion was heavily advertised.

But a judge in that case disagreed that the practice amounted to a “misrepresentation” by the company when considering all of the information contained on the packaging.

“We’re talking about having to take actions. Actions like ‘I’ve got to turn the bag over,”’ said Plumpton, who compared that to moviegoers having to scroll down to find out about Cineplex’s booking fee.

“We all know that you may need to scroll in order to see the entirety of a page. We all understand the concept of a web page when we interact with it.”

Plumpton rejected the notion that Cineplex had engaged in drip pricing, which she said is commonly understood as a situation in which “you have a display of a price and then you proceed through several screens and then ... at the very final screen, the price emerges.”

“That’s the classic case of drip pricing,” she told the judges.

“That is not this case.”

Jonathan Hood, a lawyer representing the competition commissioner, said the tribunal correctly interpreted the law in its previous ruling.

He said Cineplex’s argument “boils down to the fact that everyone scrolls.”

“They say everyone should have scrolled to the bottom of the website, but the evidence showed otherwise. Consumers scroll only when they have a reason to,” said Hood.

“And Cineplex’s own design choices ... discouraged scrolling and kept the fee obscured. Those are factual findings.”

The bureau has said the decision should stand because Cineplex advertised ticket prices that were “unattainable” and did not make clear that making a purchase at a theatre would waive the fee.

Hood told the judges that Cineplex’s tickets web page did not distinguish between theatre and online ticket prices, nor “otherwise draw the consumer’s attention to the fact that prices may vary depending on the medium used.”

“Consumers may be aware they can buy tickets at the theatre, but it’s not the relevant question,” he said.

“The relevant question is whether consumers are aware they have a choice to buy online and pay the additional fee or buy at the theatre without paying it.”

Plumpton also took issue with the record $38.9-million penalty handed down to Cineplex in the case, saying the amount was “grossly disproportionate.” She said the penalty fails to recognize the extent to which Cineplex disclosed the booking fee to its customers and offered alternatives to avoid it.

“We’re talking about a world in which Cineplex is facing $39 million when it showed the total price at the bottom of the ribbon before anyone advanced,” she said.

Hood countered that the penalty could have been even greater, noting the tribunal imposed one-third of the penalty that was available to it under the statutory ceiling.

He said the tribunal limited the amount to Cineplex’s online booking fee revenue up to Dec. 31, 2023, even though the company “continued making misleading representations for at least another nine months” until the tribunal issued its decision.

“The tribunal applied the proper framework, balanced the factors and set an amount to ensure that the kind of misconduct that Cineplex engaged in cannot be written off as simply a cost of doing business,” said Hood.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 8, 2025.

With files from Tara Deschamps in Toronto

By Sammy Hudes, The Canadian Press