One of Canada's major discount furniture retailers recently agreed to pay a penalty of $3.35 million for engaging in "false or misleading" advertising practices..According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the federal settlement with Dufresne Group Inc. of Winnipeg resulted from a Competition Bureau investigation that dates back to 2019..“Tactics that pressure consumers to make a purchase quickly like limited-time offers must be truthful,” Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell said in a statement. .“All businesses in Canada should review their marketing practices and make sure they comply with the law.”.The company runs furniture stores in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, operating under the brand names Dufresne Furniture and Ashley Furniture..Investigators focused their attention on a “sales practice" they referred to as "fake urgency cue representations," particularly the claims of “limited-time discounts.”.Dufresne Group, in a Consent Agreement with federal lawyers, acknowledged it “made representations to the public that convey the general impression discounted prices on certain products would no longer be available after a particular date or time such as ’40% off sale ends September 19’ when that was not in fact the case.”.Complaints filed under the Competition Act were outlined in a 2022 Federal Court affidavit submitted by antitrust lawyers..“The respondents have been utilizing fake urgency cue representations since at least June 2021,” wrote lawyer Paula Carr. .“I have observed these types of representations are made across many different types of products.”.“Fake urgency cue representations create the false or misleading general impression that certain promotions will end on a particular day when, in fact, the promotion is extended past the represented end date or is replaced with another discounted promotion,” wrote Carr. .“The fake urgency cue representations create the false or misleading general impression that once the end date of the promotion is reached, a discounted price will not be available and the product will instead revert to its regular price.”.“They create an expectation that consumers must purchase the promoted product quickly prior to the end date of the promotion when, in fact, this is not necessary since the promotion is renewed or replaced by another promotion,” wrote Carr. .The Competition Bureau stated it had investigators monitoring Dufresne's website promotions, mail-out flyers and visiting furniture stores as part of its efforts to investigate their marketing practices..Examples of faked “limited time only” promotions included a July 18, 2022, advertisement for 30% off a $1,189.99 sofa with “seven hours remaining.” The following day, the identical sofa was advertised at the same price with a new notice stating: “Sale ends July 25.”.According to court affidavits, a Dufresne Group dresser was advertised as a 30% discount at a price of $615.99 with a stated "sale end date September 22" had actually been available at the exact same price for a period of 124 days..A swivel chair that was advertised as a limited-time discount maintained the same price for a period of 183 days..“The respondents have engaged in deceptive marketing,” the Competition Bureau wrote the Court.
One of Canada's major discount furniture retailers recently agreed to pay a penalty of $3.35 million for engaging in "false or misleading" advertising practices..According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the federal settlement with Dufresne Group Inc. of Winnipeg resulted from a Competition Bureau investigation that dates back to 2019..“Tactics that pressure consumers to make a purchase quickly like limited-time offers must be truthful,” Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell said in a statement. .“All businesses in Canada should review their marketing practices and make sure they comply with the law.”.The company runs furniture stores in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, operating under the brand names Dufresne Furniture and Ashley Furniture..Investigators focused their attention on a “sales practice" they referred to as "fake urgency cue representations," particularly the claims of “limited-time discounts.”.Dufresne Group, in a Consent Agreement with federal lawyers, acknowledged it “made representations to the public that convey the general impression discounted prices on certain products would no longer be available after a particular date or time such as ’40% off sale ends September 19’ when that was not in fact the case.”.Complaints filed under the Competition Act were outlined in a 2022 Federal Court affidavit submitted by antitrust lawyers..“The respondents have been utilizing fake urgency cue representations since at least June 2021,” wrote lawyer Paula Carr. .“I have observed these types of representations are made across many different types of products.”.“Fake urgency cue representations create the false or misleading general impression that certain promotions will end on a particular day when, in fact, the promotion is extended past the represented end date or is replaced with another discounted promotion,” wrote Carr. .“The fake urgency cue representations create the false or misleading general impression that once the end date of the promotion is reached, a discounted price will not be available and the product will instead revert to its regular price.”.“They create an expectation that consumers must purchase the promoted product quickly prior to the end date of the promotion when, in fact, this is not necessary since the promotion is renewed or replaced by another promotion,” wrote Carr. .The Competition Bureau stated it had investigators monitoring Dufresne's website promotions, mail-out flyers and visiting furniture stores as part of its efforts to investigate their marketing practices..Examples of faked “limited time only” promotions included a July 18, 2022, advertisement for 30% off a $1,189.99 sofa with “seven hours remaining.” The following day, the identical sofa was advertised at the same price with a new notice stating: “Sale ends July 25.”.According to court affidavits, a Dufresne Group dresser was advertised as a 30% discount at a price of $615.99 with a stated "sale end date September 22" had actually been available at the exact same price for a period of 124 days..A swivel chair that was advertised as a limited-time discount maintained the same price for a period of 183 days..“The respondents have engaged in deceptive marketing,” the Competition Bureau wrote the Court.
