Game (contest law term).
R. v. World Media Brokers Inc. et al., (1998) 132 C.C.C. (3d) (Ont. Ct.): “’Game’, as a noun, is defined [in The Concise Oxford Dictionary] as ‘(form of) contest played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck’ and, as a verb, as ‘play at games of chance for money, gamble’. ‘Wager’, as both a noun and a verb, is given as a synonym for ‘bet.”
Game of skill / skill game (contest law term)
Michael d. Lipton, et al., “Games of Skill and Chance in Canada”, Gaming Law Review, Volume 9, Number 1, 2005: “In the case of R. v. Quiz It Trivia Inc., [1989] O.J. No. 3050 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) … [t]he court considered several cases for the primary purposes of defining the terms ‘skill’ and ‘chance.’ As adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ross v. The Queen, [1968] 70 D.L.R. (2d) 606, 617-20 (S.C.C.). Reference was made therein to several decisions that employed various definitions of skill, which are found in an English dictionary. The preferred definition adopted therein was one used ty the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in the matter of The Queen v. Robert Simpson (Regina) Ltd., [1958] 121 C.C.C. 39 (Sask. C.A.), which is drawn from the New Oxford Dictionary as follows: ‘capable of accomplishing something with precision and certainty; cleverness and expertise.’”
Gaming.
Earth Future Lottery, Re, 2002 CarswellPEI 33 (P.E.I. Sup. Ct.), at para 10: “The provisions set out above clearly demonstrate that Parliament does not happily abide gaming activities or any sort in Canada. The little it tolerates, it does so grudgingly. Section 206 is prohibititive in nature, not regulatory. The purpose of Parliament in enacting it was generally to outlaw gaming and lotteries, not just to ensure they would be run honestly. Subsection 206(1) creates a number of indictable offense proscribing a comprehensive range of gaming and gaming related activities. Subsection 206(4) makes it a summary conviction offence to buy, take or receive a lot, ticket, other device mentioned in 206(1). Although s. 207 allows some tightly circumscribed exceptions to s. 206, it too contains a broad prohibition. Subsection 207(3) makes it an offence to do anything for the purpose of the conduct, management, operation of, or participation in a lottery scheme unless the doing of it is authorized by or pursuant to some provision of 207. Thus, even permitted lotteries my strictly adhere to the limits imposed by the terms and condition of s. 207.”
General impression test.
A term used in the context of advertising and marketing law, and in particular in relation to misleading advertising under the Competition Act. In general, an advertising or marketing claim may contravene the “general” criminal (section 52) or civil (section 74.01) misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act if it is literally false or misleading or if the “general impression” of the claim is false or misleading.
In this regard, subsection 52(4) of the Competition Act provides: “In a prosecution for a contravention of [the criminal misleading advertising section], the general impression conveyed by a representation as well as its literal meaning shall be taken into account in determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.” The general civil misleading advertising provisions contain a similar section (subsection 74.03(5)). As such, when reviewing advertising and marketing for compliance with the misleading advertising provisions of the Act, the entire context of a claim or representation must be considered, including the association and placement of words, the placement and choice of images, graphics and pictures, and as well consideration of whether the omission of material information (e.g., relating to price, quality, scope of services, important conditions, limitations, etc.) may mean that the “general impression” of the overall claim or representation could be seen as false or misleading.
The Competition Bureau’s 2001 Misleading Advertising Guidelines provided one of the most detailed and relevant discussions of the “general impression test”, despite having been since replaced by updated misleading advertising guidelines by the Bureau since: “Section 52(4) requires a court to take into account the general impression conveyed by a representation, in addition to its literal meaning. … The application of the general impression test is particularly important where: the representation is partially true and partially false, or the representation is capable of two meanings, one of which is false; the representation is literally true but is, in fact, misleading since it fails to reveal certain essential information … the representation is literally or technically true but creates a false impression, for example where the advertised results of a test of a product may not be significant to its use or efficacy but the representation makes it appear otherwise … ; the representation is literally true insofar as the oral or written statements are concerned but the visual part of the representation may create a false impression, for example where it depicts a model which is different from the advertised product …”
Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8, at para 56: “In sum, it is our opinion that the test under s. 218 C.P.A. is that of the first impression. In the case of false or misleading advertising, the general impression is the one a person has after an initial contact with the entire advertisement, as it relates to both the layout of the advertisement and the meaning of the words used. This test is similar to the one that must be applied under the Trade-marks Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13) to determine whether a trade-mark causes confusion.”
Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8: “The general impression test provided for in [the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the “CPA”)] must be applied from a perspective similar to that of ‘ordinary hurried purchasers’, that is, consumers who take no more than ordinary care to observe that which is staring them in the face upon their first contact with an advertisement. The courts must not conduct their analysis from the perspective of a careful and diligent consumer. … In applying the general impression test provided for in [the CPA] the Quebec courts have traditionally used the words ‘credulous’ and ‘inexperienced’ to describe the consumer in issue in the Act. … In sum, it is clear that … the ‘general impression’ referred to in [the CPA] is the impression of a commercial representation on a credulous and inexperienced consumer. … Thus, in Quebec consumer law, the expression ‘average consumer’ does not refer to a reasonably prudent and diligent person, let alone a well‑informed person. To meet the objectives of [the CPA] the courts view the average consumer as someone who is not particularly experienced at detecting the falsehoods or subtleties found in commercial representations.”
Professor Claude Masse, Loi sur la protection du consommateur: analyse et commentaires (1999), at p. 828: “Commercial advertising often plays on the general impression that may be conveyed by an advertisement and even on the literal meaning of the terms used. Information in advertisements is transmitted quickly. Advertising relies on the image and the impression of the moment. This general impression is often what is sought in advertising. By definition, consumers do not have time to think at length about the real meaning of the messages being conveyed to them or about whether words are being used in their literal sense. The content of advertising is taken seriously in consumer law. Consumers do not have to wonder whether or not the promises made to them or the undertakings given are realistic, serious or plausible. Merchants, manufacturers and advertisers are therefore bound by the content of messages actually conveyed to consumers.”
Competition Bureau, Ensuring Truth in Advertising, Additional Information About the Competition Act, The General Scope of the False or Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices Provisions of the Competition Act: “Subsections 52(4), 52.1(4) and 74.03(5) [of the Competition Act] require a court to take into account the general impression conveyed by a representation, in addition to its literal meaning. This test applies to the following provisions: subsection 52(1) — false or misleading representations; subsection 52.1(3) — deceptive telemarketing; paragraph 74.01(1)(a) — false or misleading representations; paragraph 74.01(1)(b) — performance representations not based on adequate and proper tests; paragraph 74.01(1)(c) — misleading warranties and guarantees; subsections 74.01(2) and 74.01(3) — false or misleading ordinary selling price representations; and section 74.02 — untrue, misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials. General impression is also an element of subsection 53(1), which prohibits deceptive notices of winning a prize. The application of the general impression test is particularly important where: the representation is partially true and partially false, or the representation is capable of two meanings, one of which is false; the representation is literally true but is, in fact, misleading since it fails to reveal certain essential information [i.e., the non-disclosure of material information]; the representation is literally or technically true but creates a false impression, for example where the advertised results of a test of a product may not be significant to its use or efficacy but the representation makes it appear otherwise …; the representation is literally true insofar as the oral or written statements are concerned but the visual part of the representation may create a false impression, for example where it depicts a model which is different from the advertised product …”
Competition Bureau, Enforcement Guidelines, “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” Claims: “When determining whether a ‘Product of Canada’ or ‘Made in Canada’ declaration has been made that is false or misleading, the [Competition Act] requires that the general impression conveyed by a representation as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account. Thus, when examining a particular representation, the Bureau will consider the general impression conveyed through a combination of words, visual elements, illustrations and overall layout that may alter the plain meaning of a representation.”
R. v. Imperial Tobacco Products Ltd., [1971] 5 W.W.R. 409 (Alta. Sup. Ct.), at paras 63-65: “Turning now to the final question, whether the impugned advertisement evidences an offence, the first point is whether the one sentence in large type, ‘$5 in every pack of new Casino’, on which the Crown rests its case, can be considered completely divorced from its context in determining whether the advertisement contains ‘a statement that purports to be a statement of fact but that is untrue.’ I am of the opinion that it would be contrary to accepted tenets of common law to attribute to a phrase a meaning which it bears standing alone, when in the context in which it is used it bears a different meaning. Whether a statement purports to be one of fact can only be determined by reference to the circumstances and context in which it was made. I do not gather from the reasons for judgment of the learned trial Judge that he necessarily held a different view on this point.
Nevertheless, the determination would not be coerced one way or the other, either by narrow or by vague parameters. The issue is whether in the context of the whole advertisement, the statement purports to be true, and the question is the standard to be used in the determination. The learned trial Judge adopted as his a phrase appearing in Aronberg et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 132 F. 2d 165 at 167. The paragraph in which that phrase occurs is in these terms: ‘The law is not made for experts but to protect the public – that vast multitude which includes the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous, who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze but too often are governed by appearances and general impressions … Advertisements must be considered in their entirety, and as they should be read by those to whom they appeal.’
On this point, the following passage appears in Federal Trade Commission v. Sterling Drug Inc., supra [-. 674]: ‘It is therefore necessary in these cases to consider the advertisement in its entirety and not to engage indisputatious dissection. The entire mosaic should be viewed rather than each tile separately. ‘[T]he buying public does not ordinarily carefully study or weigh each word in an advertisement. The ultimate impression upon the mind of the reader arises from the sum total of not only what is said but also of all that is reasonably implied.’”
For more information, see: Canadian Misleading Advertising and Canadian Misleading Advertising FAQs. See also: Disclaimers and General Impression Test.
Geofencing.
Wall Street Journal: “The idea behind geofencing is to target consumers when they are nearby—and the promotions can get hyper-local, like beaming a special on umbrellas to people within a 10-mile radius during a rainstorm, or touting a markdown on aisle 6 when a customer is walking down aisle 3.”
Geo Targeting.
An advertising industry term.
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB): “Basic geo-targeting allows targeting Internet users (targeting online or mobile devices) by means of cross referencing their IP address with a global ISP IP address directory. This permits ad servers that are connected to this database to target devices based on their IP address’ geographic location: state/province, city/municipality, telephone area code and postal/zip code. Really this allows reaching someone whose device is connected through Internet access based on that Internet access’s point of origin. It is not always as precise as we’d like it to be, nor is it always what we expect it to be though it’s quite logical why it isn’t.”
Gift card.
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada: “There are two main types of prepaid cards. Both require you to pay up front to ‘load’ money on to a card for later use and both are sometimes referred to as ‘gift cards’. Prepaid cards from retailers can only be used at a single store or group of stores, such as a chain or shopping mall. Other prepaid cards, usually branded with a payment card network operator’s logo, such as American Express, MasterCard or Visa, can be used at most merchants that display the specific network’s logo.”
Datacard Group: “A gift card is a type of stored-value payment card commonly issued by retailers and banks. Gift cards are preloaded with a set value. There are two major types of cards – those that can be used only at one store chain or one location (closed loop) and those that can be used anywhere (open loop). Closed loop gift cards generally carry no fees or expiration date – the issuing store makes its money off the profit from selling merchandise. Open loop gift cards always carry fees. Because they are issued by banks or credit card transaction processors, such as Visa or MasterCard, fees are the only way they can profitably issue gift cards.”
Ontario Consumer Protection Act Regulations: “’Gift card’ means a voucher in any form, including an electronic credit or written certificate, that is issued by a supplier under a gift card agreement and that the holder is entitled to apply towards purchasing goods or services covered by the voucher.”
Giveaway (Canadian contest/sweepstakes law term).
A “giveaway” is another term for a promotional contest or sweepstakes. In Canada, there is no legal distinction between using the terms “contest”, “promotional contest”, “giveaway” or “sweepstakes” to refer to promotional contests where prizes are awarded by way of random draw or skill with a no purchase entry option and, for random draw contests, a skill-testing question. Private parties cannot, however, generally run lotteries in Canada (i.e., where a purchase is required to enter or obtain a ticket or ballot to win a prize), unless a provincial license has been obtained to run a charitable lottery. For more information, see: Canadian Contest Laws. For rules and precedents to run promotional giveaways in Canada (i.e., contests/sweepstakes), see: Canadian Contest Rules and Forms.
Government advertising.
Advertising Standards Canada, The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards: “‘advertising’ by any part of local, provincial or federal governments, or concerning policies, practices or programs of such governments, as distinct from ‘political advertising’ and ‘election advertising.’”
Greenwashing.
Devika Kewalramani & Richard J. Sobelsohn (Moses & Singer LLP): “’Greenwashing’ is a novel word that merges the concepts of ‘green’ (environmentally sound), and ‘whitewashing’ (to gloss over wrongdoing), to describe the deceptive use of green marketing that promotes a misleading perception that a company’s policies, practices, products or services are environmentally friendly. ‘Greenwashing’ officially became part of the English language in 1999 with its entry into the Oxford English Dictionary. It defines the term as ‘disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.’ The term is generally used when an organization expends more time and resources marketing their ‘greenness’ than actually adopting procedures that are environmentally beneficial. It includes the practice of misleading customers regarding the environmental advantages of a specific product or service through deceptive advertising and unsubstantiated claims.”
For more information, see: Green and Environmental Claims.
********************
SERVICES AND CONTACT
We are a Toronto based Canadian competition and advertising law firm that helps clients in Toronto, across Canada and the United States practically navigate Canada’s advertising and marketing laws and offers Canadian advertising/marketing law services in relation to print, online, new media, social media and e-mail marketing.
Our Canadian advertising/marketing law services include advice in relation to anti-spam legislation (CASL), Competition Bureau complaints, the general misleading advertising provisions of the federal Competition Act, Internet, new media and social media advertising and marketing, promotional contests (sweepstakes) and sales and promotions. We also provide advice relating to specific types of advertising issues, including performance claims, testimonials, disclaimers, drip pricing, astroturfing and native advertising.
For more information about our services, see: services
To contact us about a potential legal matter, see: contact
For more information about our firm, visit our website: Competitionlawyer.ca
