Bill 10 amends Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act to require clearer disclosures and new consumer safeguards in two areas: secondary ticket markets and contracts with sequential performance (recurring or staged delivery). For ticket markets, digital resale platforms must prominently identify themselves on access and sellers must disclose the authorized primary vendor, seat info and prior owner; the bill also caps resale prices except in narrow, disclosed circumstances and bans transfer fees.
For sequential-performance contracts sold online—think subscription services and multi-installment offers—the bill forces merchants to give consumers an obvious online way to cancel without cause and to send a written reminder 2–10 days before introductory or reduced-price periods end. It adds restitution obligations, expands some protections to merchant-to-merchant transactions, creates new administrative penalties (and criminal offences), and tightens permit rules for collection agents.
These changes shift transparency and liability burdens onto platforms and merchants and create defined penalties for noncompliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires digital ticket-resale platforms to present a clear notice on entry and forces resellers to disclose the authorized vendor, price comparators, seat and last-owner information; bans charging for ticket transfers and deems certain platform operators to be resellers. For online recurring contracts, it requires a clearly visible cancellation button and a written renewal-price notice 2–10 days before an introductory period ends, plus fee-disclosure next to any advertised instalment amount.
Who It Affects
Digital ticket-resale platforms and third-party marketplaces, primary vendors/producers and authorized ticket sellers, merchants offering subscription or instalment-based services (telecom, streaming, subscription boxes), collection agents and the Office de la protection du consommateur which enforces the rules.
Why It Matters
The bill creates specific, UI-level obligations and statutory presumptions that shift compliance work and legal risk onto platforms and merchants rather than only on end vendors. It also provides concrete monetary administrative penalties and restitution remedies, changing enforcement dynamics for consumer-facing digital marketplaces and subscription businesses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a short new division into the Consumer Protection Act that targets online resale platforms and sequential-performance contracts. For ticket resale, the law requires an immediately visible notice when a consumer opens a resale platform telling them they are on a resale site and that the producer’s authorized vendor may offer lower prices; where the platform lists both primary sales and resales it must make clear which listings are resales.
A separate provision obliges any reseller to disclose, before the sale, four items: the authorized vendor’s identity and price, whether the ticket is resold, the seat or place (if applicable), and the name of the ticket’s last owner. The bill also prevents sellers from charging fees to transfer a ticket and sets out three narrow exceptions that allow a resale price greater than the primary price only where the producer has consented, resale complies with a producer agreement, or a maximum resale price agreed by the producer was disclosed to the consumer beforehand.
The law also creates a presumption that a technological intermediary that enables a third party to resell tickets and receive payment will be treated as the reseller for key statutory obligations. Practically, that pulls many platform operators—marketplaces, some resale tools, and likely integrated payment providers—into the compliance circle for disclosure and price rules.
Producers are required to inform authorized vendors and resellers about cancellations or event changes as soon as possible, and sellers or resellers must pass those notices to affected consumers.On sequential-performance contracts (contracts where goods or services are delivered over time), the bill requires merchants selling such contracts online to include an easy-to-find button that lets consumers cancel without cause. If a contract includes a temporary free or reduced-price period that converts into a higher-priced ongoing contract, the merchant must send a written notice between two and ten days before that period ends, saying both the end date and the future price.
For services provided at a distance, when a merchant announces instalment amounts the merchant must display, adjacent to that figure, any non-instalment fees required to obtain the service; if the instalment amount is given verbally, the merchant must state the ancillary fees immediately after announcing the instalment amount.The bill tightens remedies and enforcement: a merchant who charges an amount the Act forbids must restitute that amount regardless of any services rendered; certain provisions (including administrative penalty regimes) extend to some merchant-to-merchant situations; and the regulation creates fixed monetary administrative penalties for specific contraventions. The Act also amends collection-agent permit rules to allow suspension or cancellation where the holder’s financial condition or conduct raises public-interest concerns.
Finally, the bill includes transitional carve-outs and staggered coming-into-force dates to give businesses and regulators time to implement the new rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Digital ticket-resale platforms must display a prominent notice on access that the site is a resale platform and that tickets may be cheaper from the producer’s authorized vendor (section 236.0.1).
Resellers must disclose before sale: the authorized vendor’s identity and price, that the ticket is resold, seat/place information (if any), and the ticket’s last owner; resale prices cannot exceed the vendor’s price except in three specified circumstances (section 236.1).
The statute bans charging any fee for the transfer of a ticket (section 236.5) and deems certain technological intermediaries that enable resale to be ‘reselling’ for compliance purposes (section 236.6).
For contracts with introductory free/reduced periods, merchants must send a clear written notice 2–10 days before that period ends stating the end date and the price that will apply thereafter (Regulation chapter 79.6.9.1 implementing section 187.29).
Monetary administrative penalties are specified for sequential-performance violations: $750 for a natural person and $1,500 in other cases for failing to provide the resiliation button or the required renewal notice (Regulation §12.1, section 22.1).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Online cancellation access and advance notice for sequential-performance offers
This division creates two operational duties for merchants selling contracts with sequential performance online. Section 187.28 requires a clearly identifiable online control (a cancellation button) to let consumers rescind without cause—an implementation-level mandate that will likely translate to UI/UX requirements in merchant sites and apps. Section 187.29 sets up a timing obligation for written renewal notices when a temporary low-price period expires; the regulation narrows the send window to 2–10 days before expiry, which imposes a concrete timeline merchants must track per contract.
Up-front disclosure of non-instalment fees next to advertised instalments
This provision forces merchants who advertise instalment amounts for remote services to show, adjacent to the instalment figure, any additional fees not charged by instalments. It also covers verbal price disclosures and requires the fees to be stated immediately after a spoken instalment amount. Expect this to affect marketing scripts, telesales training, and how product pages display price breakdowns.
Ticket-resale platform notices, seller disclosures, transfer-fee ban and deemed-reseller rule
These sections establish a layered approach: platforms must flag themselves on access; resellers must give specific pre-sale disclosures; charging for transfers is forbidden; and technological intermediaries that facilitate resale and payment are legally treated as resellers for several resale-related duties. The deemed-reseller clause broadens statutory reach to cover some intermediaries that previously considered themselves passive—raising compliance and risk-allocation questions for marketplaces, white-label resale tools and payment gateways.
Restitution for prohibited charges
Where a merchant charges an amount it is not permitted to charge under the Act or related undertakings, this section requires restitution of the amount to the consumer regardless of any services already provided. That creates a strict monetary remedy separate from other contractual claims and may produce refund liabilities even where the merchant claims partial performance.
Collection-agent permit suspension or cancellation grounds
The bill tightens grounds on which the president may suspend or cancel a collection-agent permit to include financial inability to meet obligations and inability to ensure honesty and competence in collection activity. Operationally, permit holders must demonstrate financial soundness and continued competence or risk administrative removal—potentially increasing compliance cost and solvency scrutiny in the sector.
Monetary administrative penalties and enforcement scope
The regulation specifies fixed administrative penalties ($750 natural person / $1,500 others) for failing to provide the resiliation button or the required renewal notice, plus amendments that broaden the set of contraventions subject to penalties (including failure to show fees next to instalment amounts and resale-related infractions). The regulation also adds an express prohibition on contractual clauses that silence consumer reviews, making unenforceable any stipulation that prevents consumers from publishing feedback.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers purchasing event tickets: They gain upfront price comparators, clearer identification of resale listings, a ban on transfer fees, and a statutory route to restitution if charged improperly—reducing surprise costs and information asymmetry in secondary markets.
- Subscribers to sequential-performance services (telecom, streaming, subscription goods): They receive an easy online cancellation mechanism and advance written notice before introductory periods end, reducing accidental renewals and surprise billing.
- Authorized primary vendors and event producers: The disclosure requirements and resale-price controls protect the visibility of primary offerings and give producers clearer paths to enforce resale agreements and communicate event changes.
- Regulators and OCP (Office de la protection du consommateur): The statute furnishes concrete offences, administrative-penalty figures and a deemed-reseller tool that strengthen enforcement options and simplify the identification of liable parties.
- Consumers posting reviews: The express prohibition on banning consumer reviews preserves public feedback channels and removes contract clauses that would gag purchasers from publishing experiences.
Who Bears the Cost
- Digital resale platforms and marketplace operators: They must redesign entry pages and listing labels, adopt new data-capture and disclosure flows, and face potential liability under the deemed-reseller rule—raising compliance, engineering and legal costs.
- Merchants offering subscription or instalment services (telecoms, OTT services, subscription retailers): They must add UI elements for cancellation, implement automatic notice systems tied to promotional-period end dates, and adjust advertising and call scripts to display ancillary fees.
- Resellers and secondary-market intermediaries that relied on transfer fees: The blanket ban on transfer fees removes a revenue stream and requires business-model adjustments or absorption of those costs.
- Collection-agent permit holders: Increased administrative scrutiny and grounds for permit suspension or cancellation mean higher compliance and solvency monitoring costs and potential business disruption if permits are revoked.
- Small merchants with limited compliance resources: Fixed penalties (even modest ones) and the restitution rule may be disproportionately impactful for small vendors that lack automated notice and refund systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: protecting consumers from opaque resale practices and surprise subscription renewals versus preserving secondary-market dynamism and commercial flexibility for platforms and merchants. Tight, UI-driven transparency and a broad deemed-reseller rule protect buyers but may constrain marketplace innovation, create compliance burdens for intermediaries, and spark disputes about where liability properly rests.
The bill packs many implementation-level obligations into relatively short statutory provisions, but leaves several practical questions to regulation or administrative guidance. The deemed-reseller presumption sweeps in technological intermediaries based on functional criteria (enabling resale and receiving payment) but does not define the outer boundaries; firms that provide escrow, payment facilitation, or white-label storefronts will need regulatory clarity to know whether they are treated as resellers or mere service providers.
Similarly, the statute requires disclosure of the authorized vendor’s announced price, but does not resolve timing or verification rules for rapidly changing primary prices (dynamic pricing, discounts, or promotional releases), which could create disputes about whether a resale price exceeded the relevant comparator.
Operationalizing UI mandates—an immediate platform notice on access, a ‘readily identifiable’ online cancellation button, and fee information adjacent to instalment amounts including in verbal sales—will push compliance into product design and sales scripting. Businesses must map existing flows to these requirements, and regulators will need to set practical standards (size, placement, wording, delivery method for notices) or enforcement will turn on case-by-case adjudication.
The restitution rule imposes a strict monetary remedy that can produce full refunds even after partial performance; that protects consumers but may produce financial strain for merchants who cannot recover costs, and raises questions about how restitution interacts with disputed-authority sales or chargebacks.
Finally, the expansion of some protections to merchant-to-merchant contracts and the changes to collection-agent permit grounds introduce cross-sector ripple effects. Businesses that contract with other merchants should audit agreements for newly applicable consumer-protection provisions, and collection agencies face a lower tolerance for financial weakness.
The bill substantially reallocates risk toward platforms and merchants but leaves several definitional and procedural issues for future regulation or litigation—creating short-term legal uncertainty alongside clearer statutory aims.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.