Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The prosecution alleged that EB Games used a deceptive pretext to solicit sales of video game consoles.

• Section 230(b) of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act prohibits solicitation based on misleading or false pretexts.

• Key legal issue was whether EB Games initiated contact and misled consumers about conditions of sale.

• The court clarified that solicitation must originate from the merchant, not the consumer, to constitute an offence.

• Evidence showed customers voluntarily sought out consoles and were not lured by false pretenses.

• The prosecution failed to prove all elements of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Factual background and procedural context

Electronics Boutique Canada Inc. (operating as EB Games) was prosecuted by Quebec’s Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) for allegedly violating section 230(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The case arose from events in fall 2021, when demand for PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X consoles far exceeded supply.

Three consumers testified that when they attempted to purchase consoles at different EB Games stores, they were informed that the consoles were only available in bundles. These bundles required the purchase of additional accessories or extended warranties. Each customer expressed feeling surprised and pressured by the requirement to buy extra items in order to obtain the console.

The DPCP alleged that EB Games used a pretext—implying that the consoles were available individually—to attract customers into stores, only to later impose restrictive sales conditions. It claimed this constituted a deceptive sales practice designed to solicit purchases under false or misleading pretenses.

Legal analysis and findings

The court focused on whether EB Games’ actions met the statutory definition of a “pretext” under section 230(b). This required the prosecution to prove four cumulative elements:

1. That the merchant initiated direct contact with the consumer

2. That the merchant’s true intention was to solicit a sale

3. That the contact involved a motive unrelated to the actual sale (i.e., a pretext)

4. That the merchant attempted to solicit the sale during the interaction

The court found that these conditions were not met. All three customers had independently initiated contact with EB Games—either by visiting the store or responding to product availability. There was no evidence that EB Games directly reached out to consumers or used an unrelated motive to disguise a sales effort.

Moreover, while the bundling strategy was clearly a commercial tactic to maximize revenue during a period of product scarcity, the court concluded it did not amount to a false or deceptive pretext. The conditions of sale were visible in stores and on the website. The sales approach may have exerted pressure on consumers but did not cross the legal threshold into penal liability.

Decision and outcome

The Court of Quebec acquitted Electronics Boutique Canada Inc. of all charges. The judge concluded that the prosecution had not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a deceptive pretext was used to solicit the sale of the consoles. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between aggressive marketing and unlawful solicitation.

The case highlights the fine line between business strategy and consumer protection violations. While the court acknowledged EB Games’ tactics were deliberate and commercially motivated, they remained within the bounds of lawful conduct under Quebec’s consumer protection framework.