Bill 24 amends Québec’s Consumer Protection Act to prohibit using another person’s identity or image without consent to make representations to consumers. It defines “image” broadly (including altered images and audio/visual recordings) and makes unauthorized use of a likeness a prohibited business practice under Title II.
To enforce the new rule the bill gives the president of the Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC) power to issue stop‑practice orders, preservation orders for evidence, and to convert those orders into enforceable Superior Court judgments. For representations tied to regulated financial activities, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) steps in to exercise those order powers.
The bill also plugs the new offence into Québec’s monetary administrative penalty regime and preserves penal sanctions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bans, without consent, the use or permitting of another person’s identity or image for the purpose of making representations to a consumer and treats such use as a prohibited business practice under Title II of the Consumer Protection Act. It defines image to include altered visuals and any visual or sound recording.
Who It Affects
Any person or business that makes representations to consumers in Québec — including advertisers, marketing platforms, digital service providers that host or store content, and entities operating in the financial sector (subject to AMF jurisdiction). It also reaches third parties that may hold evidence, such as cloud‑storage providers.
Why It Matters
It creates a specific statutory remedy against deceptive uses of likenesses (including deepfakes) and arms Québec regulators with fast, court‑backed orders and evidence‑preservation powers — shifting some of the enforcement burden from private civil suits to administrative action.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill introduces a targeted consumer‑protection rule: companies may not use another person’s identity or image, or allow it to be used, to make representations to consumers unless the person consents. The text intentionally casts a wide net: an “image” covers altered or synthetic images and any visual or sound recording.
That scope is designed to capture modern manipulations used in deceptive advertising and related consumer scams.
Enforcement is administrative-first. The president of the Office de la protection du consommateur can order businesses to stop prohibited practices and can require persons who are or may be investigated — as well as third parties who may hold relevant evidence — not to dispose of that evidence.
The president must give a prescribed notice and usually allow at least 10 days for observations, but the bill permits immediate orders where urgency or risk of irreparable consumer harm exists; those orders are later subject to the 10‑day comment window.Once issued and filed with the Superior Court, an OPC order acquires the force of a court judgment, which accelerates enforcement (for example, seizure or contempt remedies). For representations that relate to activities governed by Québec’s financial‑sector statutes, the bill delegates the OPC president’s order powers to the AMF’s CEO so the AMF can issue the same kinds of stop and preservation orders in the financial regulatory context.
Finally, the bill ensures violations may trigger penal sanctions or be subject to Québec’s monetary administrative penalties regime, with a consequential amendment to that regulation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “image” to include any visual or sound recording and expressly includes altered images or images that appear to represent a person, bringing deepfakes and manipulated audio within scope.
The OPC president can order a person to stop engaging in a prohibited practice and specifically to stop allowing use of services that store technology‑based documents on a communication network (targeting hosting/storage platforms).
The president can issue preservation orders that prevent both the subject of an investigation and third parties who may have evidence from disposing of relevant material.
The president may issue an immediate order in urgent situations but must notify the person and allow at least 10 days to present observations afterward; failure to comply with certain orders is added to the Act’s enforcement triggers.
Filing an OPC order with the Superior Court gives that administrative order the force and effect of a court judgment, enabling faster judicial enforcement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ensure new rule is subject to Title II
This amendment makes the new prohibition explicitly governed by the Consumer Protection Act’s Title II framework, ensuring the rule is treated as a prohibited business practice rather than a standalone criminal offence. Practically, it ties the new prohibition into the Act’s existing enforcement architecture and remedies.
Substantive prohibition and broad definition of ‘image’
Section 238.1 creates the core prohibition: using or permitting use of a person’s identity or image in representations to consumers without consent. The provision’s definition clause extends protection to altered images and any visual or audio recording, which broadens the statute beyond static photographs to cover synthesized media and recordings — an important drafting choice for modern deceptive practices.
Links the new offence to other specified provisions
By inserting the new section reference into s.253 the bill ensures the statutory consequences and cross‑references that apply to adjacent offences also apply to the new prohibition. This is a mechanical but necessary step to integrate the new rule into the Act’s penalty and remedy structure.
New order and evidence‑preservation powers for the OPC (and AMF in financial matters)
These changes create a suite of administrative powers: the OPC president can stop practices, order intermediaries to stop allowing prohibited uses (naming hosting/storage services explicitly), and issue preservation orders to both subjects and third‑party holders of evidence. The process requires notice and a 10‑day opportunity to respond except in urgent cases, and allows the president to amend or revoke orders. Filing an order with the Superior Court converts it into an enforceable judgment. The AMF CEO is authorized to exercise these same powers when the representation concerns regulated financial activities.
Adds noncompliance with OPC orders to sanctionable conduct
This change brings persons who have been the target of an OPC order within the catalogue of actors against whom the Office can take enforcement action. In practice it expands the Office’s reach when an order has been issued and breached, enabling follow‑up penalties or remedial measures under the Act.
Connects the new prohibition to monetary administrative penalties
The bill amends the monetary‑penalty regulation so contraventions of s.238.1 are eligible for monetary administrative penalties. That permits administrative financial sanctions in addition to any criminal or civil remedies, creating a graduated enforcement toolbox.
On assent
The bill specifies it will come into force on the date of assent. That means regulated parties should expect the prohibition and order powers to be effective immediately on proclamation, rather than subject to a phased implementation schedule.
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 targeted by deceptive representations — they gain a statutory tool that specifically addresses misleading uses of likenesses and a regulator empowered to issue stop orders quickly.
- People whose images or voices are manipulated (including deepfake victims) — the broad statutory definition covers altered imagery and recordings, enabling remedies without proving a separate personal‑rights tort.
- Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC) — the Office gets explicit, expedited order and evidence‑preservation powers and a clear pathway to turn orders into enforceable court judgments.
- Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) — the AMF gains delegated order authority for financial‑sector representations, allowing coordinated regulatory action when consumer deception intersects with financial services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Digital platforms and cloud‑storage providers that host or store user content — the bill specifically contemplates ordering providers to stop allowing prohibited uses, which could require takedown processes and notice‑and‑preserve workflows.
- Advertisers, marketing agencies and firms that license or repurpose likenesses — they must obtain or document consent and may face administrative penalties or stop orders if they rely on ambiguous permissions.
- Third‑party evidence holders (e.g., CDNs, hosting companies, social networks) — preservation orders can compel them to retain content, imposing compliance costs and potential legal exposure for noncompliance.
- Small businesses and creators who reuse stock or user‑generated images — the broad definition of image and lack of carve‑outs for parody, news or artistic use may force more conservative content moderation and legal review.
- Regulators (OPC and AMF) — the Offices will need resources to process urgent orders, manage evidentiary seizures and litigate enforcement, creating an unfunded operational burden if not staffed accordingly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits rapid, regulator‑driven consumer protection against the risk of overbroad suppression and heavy compliance costs: it empowers quick stop and preservation orders to prevent consumer harm, but the broad definition of image and lack of explicit exceptions or consent standards risk chilling legitimate expression and shifting substantial operational burdens onto platforms and third‑party evidence holders.
The bill trades clarity of protection for practical fuzziness in a few places. The statutory definition of “image” is deliberately broad to capture modern synthetic media, but the text does not define levels of consent (explicit written versus implied/contractual use) or carve out common lawful uses such as journalism, academic research, or parody.
That absence raises questions for operators that routinely repurpose user content and for platforms assessing takedown/preservation requests.
The preservation and stop‑order powers are potent but administratively blunt. Ordering third‑party hosts to retain or prevent access to material can create cross‑border compliance frictions when data sits on servers outside Québec or involves foreign controllers; the bill does not address international enforcement mechanics.
Likewise, urgent orders that can be issued before the affected party presents observations accelerate protection for consumers but compress procedural safeguards and may increase risk of wrongful interim suppression of lawful speech. Finally, delegating the same order powers to the AMF in the financial context creates potential duplication and coordination challenges between two powerful provincial regulators unless a clear operational protocol is developed.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.