By Cameron Fox

On February 25, 2025, British Columbia’s Attorney General, Niki Sharma, introduced Bill 4, a series of proposed amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 (the “BPCPA”), to the Legislature. In the Bill’s presentation speech and an associated news release, the Attorney General explained that the proposed changes have been made with a view to modernize the BPCPA, which has not been amended since 2004, to reflect contemporary business practices and to account for the “increased complexities of contracts and the speed at which they are reached online”.

The Bill, if passed into law, would modify the BPCPA as follows:

1. First, it would now be prohibited for any company offering goods or services for sale to the general public to impose any contractual terms (including via the terms and conditions of a sale) that prohibit a consumer from posting a review of the product or service on the internet, from commencing or joining a class action proceeding in relation to the product or service, or that requires the consumer to agree to the arbitration of disputes arising from the product or service.
2. Second, the Bill aims to significantly restrict business’ ability to set limits or restrictions on a consumer’s ability to cancel a subscription or membership-based service. The amendments would require that all subscription contracts with a term longer than 60 days must allow the consumer to cancel the service at any time prior to a specified renewal date with no charge or penalty, or receive a partial refund if cancelled after the renewal date. Consumers must receive notices of all subscription contract renewals that include statements of their cancellation options and information about how to do so. Additionally, business will be prohibited from including terms that allow them to unilaterally amend renewal or cancellation rules that apply to existing customers, unless the changes are solely made to increase the rights available to the customer.
3. Third, the Bill would require all consumer contracts to include disclosures of specified information including the identity of the seller, the nature of the goods or services to be provided, all applicable technical specifications, trade-in or credit information (if applicable), the price and expected delivery date(s) of the goods, and all applicable return, exchange, cancellation and refund policies.
4. Fourth, the Bill would prohibit the “direct sale” of specified household goods and services including furnaces, air conditioners, air purifies, water heaters, home security systems, and duct cleaning services to consumers. A “direct sale” is defined in the BPCPA to mean any sale, or offer for sale, that takes place in person at any physical location other than a retail store. Based on the government’s news release, we understand that this prohibition is based on a concern that unscrupulous door-to-door salespersons have been targeting vulnerable seniors and newcomers with aggressive sales tactics and charging inflated prices on household goods and services.
5. Finally, the Bill would allow consumers to bring claims for breaches of the BPCPA before British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal. Currently, such claims may only be brought before the courts.

On February 27, Bill 4 was moved to the Third Reading (debate) stage, and may be implemented in a matter of weeks. The government has promised that, if passed, it will work with the responsible agency, Consumer Protection BC, to “provide businesses with reasonable time to adjust their practices to meet the new requirements”, although the specifics of this have not been announced.

While in service of the laudable goal of consumer protection, and including some welcome changes such as permitting consumers to access the Civil Resolution Tribunal for consumer protection claims, other changes proposed in Bill 4 represent significant interference by the state into the marketplace that undermine the basic assumption on which contact law is premised – that consumers should be free to make their own decisions about the goods and services they purchase. Business will now be prohibited from offering subscription services on terms that reflect their own overhead costs and supplier relationships, and will incur additional expense in ensuring that all such policies are in compliance with the legislation and include all necessary notices and disclosures on an ongoing basis. The effect will be increased compliance costs, which must be shouldered by businesses and passed on to end consumers.

The prohibition on the direct sale of household goods and services is particularly notable, and would, if passed, have a significant disruptive impact on participants in this market. While the stated motivation for the changes is commendable, it is suggested that the proposed amendments, as they are currently drafted, are overbroad. There are a number of existing legal doctrines such as unconscionability, undue influence, and misleading advertising that address dishonest or high-pressure sales tactics throughout the economy, without singling out a particular market segment for exclusion from an important sales avenue. Additionally, it is noted that the unscrupulous door-to-door salespersons with whom the government is concerned may simply switch to selling a different product category, leaving honest businesses operating in the household goods and services market left bearing the costs after the bad actors have moved on. The writer suggests that it may be more effective for regulatory changes to directly address the sales tactics with which the government is concerned, rather than the goods being sold.

We continue to monitor the progress of the Bill.

Update: On March 13, 2025, the Bill passed third reading in the Legislature and will become law upon receiving royal assent.