March 22, 2026

Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this instalment we have:

• CAMP is looking for a Communications and Partnership Lead to join our growing team
• Survey results show Canadians have a deep distrust of opaque algorithmic pricing
• California senator introduces the new BASED Act, adding to the state-led pushback against Big Tech power

If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP.

Now let’s dive in.

CAMP is Hiring!

In a break from our usual programming, we’re pleased to announce that we are expanding the team at CAMP. We’re on the lookout for a talented and committed candidate to be CAMP’s Communications and Partnership Lead, a new role for the organization. The role will be key in ensuring that CAMP’s work reaches the right audiences and that we’re effectively coordinating with the other great individuals and organizations in our network. We’re looking for a writer and thinker with a strong communications foundation who’s comfortable translating complex policy topics and engaging with diverse audiences and coalitions.

Working at CAMP means sticking up for everyday Canadians and standing up to the monopolists that make life more difficult for all of us. In the last year alone, our work has covered the harms of Big Tech, the costs of concentration in the food system, and advocated for Canadians on topics as diverse as dynamic pricing and protections for telecom consumers. The coming year will be no different. Between the appointment of a new Commissioner of Competition, the potential renegotiation of CUSMA, and the persisting affordability crisis, we’ll have our hands full.

If all that sounds like a good time to you or someone in your network, we’d love to hear from you. To apply for the position, please send your resume and cover letter by April 3, 2026, to applications@antimonopoly.ca with the subject line “CAMP Communications and Partnerships Lead.”

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• Chin, Inside the ‘Americanization’ of Canada’s national parks: The decade-long battle over control of Banff and Jasper (The Hub)
• Alvarez, Why city-run grocery stores may help combat rising food prices (CBC News)

Survey Says: Canadians Know Better When it Comes to Algorithmic Pricing

The data is in: Canadians really don’t like algorithmic pricing. In a new survey by Abacus Data, 52% of respondents said the practice should be banned outright, with 31% saying it should only be allowed if “more strictly regulated.” But what do we mean when we say algorithmic pricing? The survey definition is “computer systems automatically adjust[ing] prices in real time based on factors such as who is buying it, demand, competitor pricing, time of day, or a customer’s browsing behaviour.” Though we can quibble over details, that’s a decent way to sum up the concept.

While Canadians get that prices change, they correctly understand that if left unchecked, algorithmic pricing will not be used in their favour. As Abacus’ Coletto points out, it’s the secretive, manipulative, and opaque nature of algorithmic pricing that immediately puts Canadians on alert. When companies are transparent about what’s going into an individualized price, consumers can judge for themselves whether they think it’s fair. When you take that clarity away, consumers are rightly skeptical that they’re really getting the best price.

There is clear appetite among Canadians for guardrails around the use of algorithmic pricing, and at least one government has woken up to this fact. Continuing their hot streak, this week, the Government of Manitoba introduced a bill to ban the use of personal data to increase the price of goods for individual consumers. Manitoba joins the ranks of U.S. states like New York and California who are also moving to make these practices transparent, if not banned outright in certain sectors. Canadians are sending a strong message to policymakers: fairness must be a key ingredient in how companies set prices.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Winters, The Scam Economy: The true Cost of Online Scams and Crimes in America (Consumer Federation of America)
• Shell, How Employee Ownership Trusts keep wealth in Canada (Social Capital Partners)
• Wilson, Some Assembly Required: The Hidden Extractive Dynamics of Foreign Direct Investment(Council of Canadian Innovators)

To COMPETE is BASED, Actually

Americans love catchy names for their legislation. This week, California Senator Scott Wiener introduced the Blocking Anticompetitive Self-preferencing by Entrenched Dominant platforms, or BASED, Act. The bill would prevent the largest companies on the planet preferencing their own services and muting competition through the marketplaces they control, which could apply to cloud computing, app stores, online retail, and more. The Act prohibits companies from prioritizing their own products in search results, using competitor data to inform their own business, and harming competitor functionality by restricting interoperability and portability.
​
But the BASED Act isn’t California’s only effort to amp up its competition policy game. Also on the docket is the proposed Competition and Opportunity in Markets, for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy Act, also known as the COMPETE Act (we are detecting a theme). The bill would update California’s antitrust and competition laws, specifically targeting a range of behaviours that dominant companies have used to cement and exploit their dominance. As the Ticketmaster saga has shown, American states have an increasingly important role to play in protecting competition. These bills are investments in California’s ability to make good on that role.

While the names of our legislation may lack the same acronymic panache (three cheers for the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act), Canada can learn from California’s lead. While changes to our Competition Act in recent years were a welcome improvement, competition in the digital markets dominated by Big Tech remains a blind spot. Countries and states are learning that special rules are required where companies both own the market and compete within it. Canada has pushed back on Big Tech when it comes to the news and cultural policy, but we’ve got work to do when it comes to competition.

If you have any monopoly tips or stories you’d like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca

Follow CAMP on Twitter LinkedIn Instagram or Facebook​

​