Rogers Communications to pay $15 million penalty for misleading 'unlimited' wireless advertising

Rogers Communications will pay a $15 million administrative monetary penalty for misleading advertising of its wireless plans, following a decision by the Competition Tribunal. The tribunal found that Rogers' marketing for its "Infini” plans created a false impression of unlimited data access, despite a significant reduction in data speeds once users exceeded a specific volume threshold. The decision was announced this week, with detailed reasons expected to be published within ten business days. Authority and procedural stage The Canada Competition Bureau initiated the process by filing a complaint with the Competition Tribunal in December 2024. The Bureau alleged that Rogers' advertisements for plans launched in 2019 misrepresented the terms of service. While the plans were marketed as "unlimited,” the operational mechanism involved throttling data speeds to approximately 512 kilobits per second after a set limit was reached. The Bureau argued that this restriction was not sufficiently disclosed in a way that consumers could understand when making their purchasing decisions. The tribunal's order requires Rogers to pay the penalty, publish a corrective notice to consumers, and cover the Bureau's legal costs. Although the Bureau had initially sought a $135 million fine if refunds were deemed necessary, the tribunal settled on the $15 million penalty without ordering direct refunds to customers. Operational mechanism and practical effect The core issue lies in the discrepancy between the consumer-facing label of "unlimited” and the technical reality of the service. In telecommunications, "unlimited” plans typically still impose speed caps to manage network load. Rogers indicated that real data speeds for these unlimited tiers are usually listed in fine print or footnotes. The tribunal's ruling establishes that this disclosure method was insufficient to prevent consumer deception. For users, this means that while the formal plan description remained unchanged, the regulatory environment now explicitly categorizes this specific marketing approach as misleading. The practical effect is a shift in how telecommunications providers must present data limits: the label "unlimited” can no longer be used without a more prominent and clear explanation of the speed reduction thresholds and the significant drop in performance past those limits.