Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of a defendant’s right to file “appropriate evidence” at the authorization stage of a Québec class action under article 575 C.p.c.
• Characterization of GoFundMe’s disclosure of transaction and processing fees, and whether those materials are relevant to the alleged misleading representations under the Consumer Protection Act.
• Use and admissibility of GoFundMe’s standard donation page, Terms of Service, and pricing pages as contractual and contextual documents showing the platform’s modus operandi.
• Extent to which evidence about industry practice and competitor platforms (Stripe and Zeffy) is pertinent to assessing the logic and plausibility of the plaintiff’s allegations at authorization.
• Application of proportionality and the “narrow corridor” approach to limit defense evidence that would effectively transform authorization into a pre-trial on the merits.
• Partial exclusion of GoFundMe’s Giving Guarantee policy (KW-1) as not sufficiently helpful to the article 575(2) C.p.c. criteria at this preliminary stage.

Factual background

Ali Lahlou, the proposed representative plaintiff, seeks authorization to institute a class action in the Québec Superior Court (Class Actions Chamber) against GoFundMe Ireland, Ltd. The proposed group consists of all natural persons residing in Québec who have made donations via GoFundMe’s mobile application or website since 22 May 2019. The underlying claim is that GoFundMe, as an online crowdfunding platform, misled donors about how their donations would be applied and about the existence of transaction fees deducted from the amounts ultimately received by beneficiaries. GoFundMe operates an online platform that allows users to create and publish fundraising campaigns, to solicit donations from the public, and to process donations through credit-card payments. The core allegation is that donors were led to believe that, aside from any optional “tip” to the platform, their chosen donation amount would be transferred in full to the intended beneficiary.

Alleged misleading representations and consumer protection issues

The plaintiff anchors his claim in the Québec Consumer Protection Act, asserting that GoFundMe’s user interface and communications create a general impression that there are no credit-card transaction fees impacting the donation itself. According to his motion, GoFundMe allegedly represents “throughout the process” that the total donation amount, less any tip, goes entirely to the beneficiary. The plaintiff contends this impression is deceptive, because GoFundMe in practice deducts a systematic 2.9% fee plus CAD $0.30 per transaction from the funds remitted to the beneficiary. The plaintiff relies on an extract from the GoFundMe website (filed as Exhibit P-4) that describes the applicable fees. He argues that only campaign organizers are made aware of these fees, whereas the individual donors are not, so that donors are unknowingly funding transaction costs that reduce the amount received by beneficiaries. This alleged lack of disclosure and misleading overall impression form the basis of the claimed breach of the Consumer Protection Act.

GoFundMe’s motion to file “appropriate evidence”

Before the authorization of the class action is decided, GoFundMe brings a procedural motion seeking permission to file what Québec law calls “preuve appropriée” (appropriate evidence). The defendant asks the Court to admit a sworn declaration from its corporate secretary, Kimberly Wilford, together with eight attached exhibits (KW-1 to KW-8). GoFundMe’s objective is to clarify how its platform operates, what fees are actually charged, how those fees are disclosed, and how its practices compare to others in the industry. The defendant maintains that its website fully discloses that transaction fees are payable by the ultimate recipients of funds and that these fees are standard charges imposed in any credit-card-facilitated transaction. It stresses that donors themselves are not charged a platform fee and that no “platform fee” is imposed on beneficiaries beyond ordinary processing costs. The proposed exhibits include GoFundMe’s Giving Guarantee, sample fundraiser and donation pages, its Terms of Service, pricing and fees pages, Stripe’s Canadian pricing information, and information and terms regarding the competitor platform Zeffy.

Legal framework for appropriate evidence at authorization

The Court sets out the applicable principles drawn from prior Québec case law, particularly Ward and Parent. At the authorization stage of a class action, the judge has a discretionary power to allow the production of evidence that is relevant and appropriate to assessing the four criteria under article 575 C.p.c., including the existence of an arguable cause of action and the appropriateness of the class action vehicle. Evidence must be both pertinent and useful to those criteria; the mere consent of the plaintiff does not suffice. The Court emphasizes proportionality and the need to avoid transforming authorization into a full preliminary trial on the merits. The process is a filtering mechanism, not a pre-enquête on the substantive issues. Defense evidence is to be admitted sparingly, limited to what is essential and indispensable to test whether the plaintiff’s allegations are manifestly false or implausible, or to clarify contractual documents, regulatory context, or jurisdictional issues. The Court reiterates that, where there is conflict, it generally treats the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true at this stage unless they are clearly contradicted on the face of the record. The judge must resist requests for voluminous defense proof and keep the focus on whether there is a defensible cause of action.

Assessment of GoFundMe’s contractual and operational documents

Applying these principles, the Court first considers the GoFundMe-specific documents. Ms. Wilford’s declaration asserts that GoFundMe charges no fees to donors and does not levy a separate “platform fee” on beneficiaries. Instead, the only charges deducted from donations are transaction processing fees. The Court notes that Exhibit KW-2 (a standard donation page) is an example of the public-facing interface and is helpful to understanding GoFundMe’s modus operandi and the contractual environment established between GoFundMe and its users. Likewise, Exhibit KW-3, the GoFundMe Terms of Service, is relevant because it describes the transaction fees payable by organizers, who are the ultimate recipients of the funds. The Court observes that such contracts are generally accepted as appropriate evidence at the authorization stage, because they define the parties’ legal relationship and provide necessary context for the alleged misrepresentations. Exhibit KW-4, a GoFundMe web page setting out the fees charged to beneficiaries, is also treated as useful to understanding how GoFundMe’s operations function and how fees are in fact disclosed. In contrast, Exhibit KW-1, GoFundMe’s Giving Guarantee policy, is considered not particularly helpful for evaluating the criteria in article 575(2) C.p.c., which focuses on whether the facts alleged appear to justify the conclusions sought. The Court therefore finds that KW-1 is not necessary or sufficiently useful at authorization and declines to admit it as appropriate evidence.

Evidence concerning competitors and industry context

The Court then examines the exhibits concerning industry comparators, particularly Stripe and Zeffy. GoFundMe submits Stripe’s Canadian pricing information (KW-5) to show that the transaction fees it passes on to beneficiaries are in line with standard industry practice and reflect costs imposed by banks, intermediaries, and card issuers. The judge acknowledges that he does not necessarily possess detailed knowledge of the online payment and crowdfunding industry and finds that some evidence on industry practices could assist in understanding the context of GoFundMe’s model and in assessing whether the plaintiff’s allegations about fees and their characterization are logically grounded. In this sense, the Stripe pricing document is found to be potentially useful in appreciating the article 575(2) criterion. The plaintiff’s authorization motion also refers to Zeffy, another fundraising platform. Ms. Wilford’s declaration explains that GoFundMe is not a direct competitor of Zeffy, because Zeffy is restricted to legally recognized non-profit and charitable organizations in Canada and the United States. Under Zeffy’s own terms and website materials (KW-6 and KW-7), only such organizations, or entities with a social mission, are eligible to use its platform. Individual fundraisers like those described in the plaintiff’s motion cannot use Zeffy’s services. Zeffy’s model is further explained: transaction fees are substantially similar to GoFundMe’s in quantum, but Zeffy recovers them from donors through suggested contributions to the platform itself in percentages (for example, 9%, 10%, or 12%) of the donation amount, as described in Exhibit KW-8. The Court views this explanation as an important clarification of the industry environment. It helps distinguish GoFundMe’s market and operational model from that of Zeffy and suggests that some allegations in the authorization motion about comparability between the two platforms may not be accurate. Because this evidence goes to context, comparability, and potential inaccuracies in the plaintiff’s assertions—rather than to a full merits-based defense—it is treated as fitting within the narrow corridor of appropriate evidence.

Outcome of the motion and overall result

In the result, the Court grants GoFundMe’s motion in part. It authorizes the filing of Ms. Wilford’s sworn declaration, except for one paragraph (paragraph 3), and admits Exhibits KW-2 through KW-8 as appropriate evidence at the authorization stage. Only the Giving Guarantee document (KW-1) is excluded as not sufficiently useful to the statutory authorization criteria. Costs (“frais”) are reserved to follow, with no immediate award. As this decision concerns solely a procedural motion on evidence, there is no determination on the merits of the class action, no ruling yet on authorization, and no judgment on liability or damages under the Consumer Protection Act. GoFundMe, as the moving party, is therefore the partially successful party in this specific decision, but the judgment does not order any monetary award, costs, or damages in its favour, and the total amount awarded cannot be determined from this ruling.