Bliss Entertainment is a concert promoter. Each year, Bliss organizes a music festival in Regina featuring live acts that perform over the course of a weekend. Bliss advertises and sells tickets to the event through its website and also sends out emails to previous festival attendees who have signed up for its newsletter. Although costs have increased, Bliss wants to keep its price as attractive as possible, and its website homepage and emails advertise that tickets for the event are “Still only $180!”, wruch is the same price for the event over the past tlrree years. To help meet its rising costs, Bliss plans to implement a new “environmental surcharge” of $10 wruch it will use to help defray the increased costs for the new sustainable waste management program it plans to implement at t!Us year’s festival as well as a new “processing fee” of $15. The website homepage and emails it sends out refer only to the ticket price as “Still only $180” and say nothing of the mandatory new charges wruch are added in the final step of its multi-step online purchasing process. What legal issues are raised by this strategy? What steps might Bliss take to ensure that its marketing strategy is compliant with the law?