Comparative Advertising in Ontario: What You Can Legally Say About a Competitor

"We're faster than [Competitor]." "Half the price of the leading brand." Comparing yourself directly to a named competitor can be some of the most effective advertising an Ontario business runs — and it is legal to do. But comparative advertising sits at the intersection of three separate bodies of law, and a claim that seems like clever marketing can quietly cross into risk from more than one direction at once.

Comparative advertising rules in Canada draw from the Competition Act, trademark law, and general civil liability for false statements about a competitor. Understanding all three helps you make a comparison that is punchy without being exposed.

The Competition Act Angle: Your Claims Must Be True and Substantiated

Comparing yourself to a competitor does not lower the bar for accuracy — if anything, it raises it, because you are making a specific, checkable claim rather than a vague one. The same misleading-advertising principles that apply to claims about your own product apply equally to claims about someone else's:

• Any comparative performance, price, or quality claim should be one you can actually substantiate with evidence.
• The overall impression the comparison creates for an ordinary consumer is what matters, not just the literal wording.
• A comparison based on outdated, cherry-picked, or unrepresentative data about the competitor can be just as misleading as one about your own product.

The Trademark Angle: Naming or Depicting a Competitor

You can generally refer to a competitor by name for a genuine, accurate comparison — using a competitor's trademark to identify them is different from using it to imply an association, endorsement, or affiliation that does not exist. Where comparative advertising tends to cross into trademark risk is when:

• The use creates confusion about who is actually behind the ad or the product.
• The competitor's branding, logo, or trade dress is used in a way that goes beyond simple, accurate identification.
• The comparison implies a partnership, sponsorship, or approval by the competitor that does not exist.

The Defamation Angle: False Statements That Damage Reputation

Separately from advertising-specific law, a false statement of fact about a competitor that damages their reputation can expose a business to a defamation claim, regardless of whether the statement appeared in an "ad" as opposed to any other public communication. Opinion and genuine, accurate comparison are generally on safer ground than a false factual claim presented as fact.

A Pre-Publication Checklist for Comparative Ads

• [ ] Can you point to specific, current evidence supporting every comparative claim in the ad?
• [ ] Is the comparison based on genuinely equivalent products, pricing, or conditions (comparing your discounted price to a competitor's full price, for example, can itself be misleading)?
• [ ] Does the ad use the competitor's name or trademark only to identify them accurately, without implying endorsement or affiliation?
• [ ] Could any statement in the ad be read as a false factual claim about the competitor, rather than a genuine comparison or opinion?
• [ ] Has someone outside the marketing team who wrote the ad reviewed it before publication?

Why This Combination of Risks Catches Businesses Off Guard

Many businesses think through only one of these angles — usually "can we legally name them?" — without separately checking whether every comparative claim is substantiated, or whether the tone tips from fair comparison into something a court could treat as reputational harm. A comparative ad can be perfectly fine on the trademark front and still create Competition Act exposure, or vice versa. Reviewing a comparative campaign means checking all three lenses, not just the one that happens to come to mind first.

Frequently asked questions