Letters: Early Loss for Google
March 8, 2026Welcome 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:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP. Now let’s dive in.
Google Loses Constitutional Challenge to Competition Act Financial PenaltiesFinally, some good news. This week, the Competition Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by Google with the potential to shape the future of competition law in Canada. Preparations are underway for the Competition Bureau to take Google to trial in early 2027 (too long, we know) for abusing its dominance in online advertising. In response to the Bureau’s suit, Google argued that the potential financial penalties from the trial could be so large that they qualified as a criminal punishment. Google’s position was that accordingly it should have the same rights as someone under criminal persecution, those rights had been violated, and the entire case should be brought to a halt. So, what does this mean and why does it matter? Not so long ago, Canada’s competition law had loser monetary penalties, capping out at $10 million ($15 million if you really misbehaved). For reference, last year Google’s revenue in Canadian dollars was ~$540 billion. To call the old penalties a parking ticket would be an insult to parking tickets. But in 2023 that changed. Canada beefed up its competition laws and changed the ceiling for penalties to include 3% of annual worldwide revenues over the course of the conduct. This means monetary penalties finally have the heft to deter abuses of corporate dominance. Had Google’s complaint succeeded, not only would this important case be put on ice, but the ability of the Tribunal to use monetary penalties to deter anti-competitive conduct would have been thrown into question. Monetary penalties, because they don’t address the underlying issue, are far from ideal when it comes to competition remedies. But when paired with other remedies like breakups and bans, they can be a deterrent and source of restitution for harms to competition. We’re still waiting anxiously to see Google’s abuse of dominance case go to trial. But in the meantime, the Tribunal’s decision this week is an important signal that stronger powers under the Competition Act are here to stay. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Online Betting Competition isn’t Delivering for OntariansIf you’ve watched live sports recently, you’ve likely been inundated with ads for online betting apps. Though the federal government opened the door to single-event sports betting in 2021, Ontario is so far the only province to have opened its online betting markets to competition in 2022. Opening markets typically brings the expected benefits of competition, lower prices, higher quality, more choice. But when the market itself generates negative side effects, competition can end up being a race to the bottom. In the case of online betting in Ontario, those costs are starting to add up. This week a new report found that since opening up competition, the number of gambling related calls to Ontario’s mental health hotline have increased 300%. Paired with gambling-related bankruptcies quadrupling, this suggests a sharp uptick in harmful gambling habits, particularly among young men. Gambling apps don’t win by pitching moderation. They compete through gamification, free introductory bets, and splurging on ad spending. Like any market with social side effects, most users strike a better balance with their use of these apps. But data from Ontario suggests that the current approach is causing real harms to vulnerable users. We want more competition in Canada, but online betting reminds us that we need to think about the kind of competition we want. We need to take a pause and evaluate what the consequences of competition have been in this market and consider whether some markets should stay closed. Absent that, researchers at Cardus suggest that harms could be reduced by taking steps like banning in-game betting and omnipresent gambling ads. Competition isn’t always the answer, and with stakes this high we might be better served by walking away from the table. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Front Row at Ticketmaster Live NationThe antitrust case against Ticketmaster Live Nation brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) went to trial this week, the first major salvo against the company’s dominance in live entertainment. The case is long time coming. Ticketmaster was allowed to consummate its merger with Live Nation in 2010, and the sixteen year experiment of allowing the concert goliath to combine has, in the words of Kid Rock, “failed miserably.” At the heart of the trial is Ticketmaster’s ability to leverage their dominant positions across the entertainment ecosystem, ticketing, venue ownership, artist representation, to squeeze out competing players. Now, finally, the monopoly at the heart of the live entertainment industry in the U.S. and Canada will have to answer for at least some of the damage it has caused to concertgoers, artists, independent venues, and competitors. At stake is the structure of the company itself. Though the judge overseeing the trial has narrowed the claims of the lawsuit, a breakup of the company’s ticketing and venue management lines of business is still in the mix. Rather than “thou shalt not” conduct requirements that have proven ineffective in the past, a breakup would get to heart of how Ticketmaster flexes power across the live entertainment landscape. Though occurring in the U.S., the trial will likely have implications for the Canadian concertgoing market. If the DOJ is successful, a breakup of the company or far-reaching remedy that prevents Ticketmaster from engaging in anticompetitive conduct could apply to venues north of the border. The outcome will also be instructive for a similar lawsuit brought by the Consumers Council of Canada, which is currently seeking leave to the Competition Tribunal. If you’re interested in the day-to-day of the trial, be sure to check out Gigi Liman’s coverage at Big Tech On Trial for excellent coverage and context of a trial that will be critical for concertgoers, artists, and independent venues. 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 |
Canada's Competition Tribunal Rejects Google's Constitutional Challenge, Clearing Path for Advertising Antitrust Case
March 4, 2026 [Ottawa, ON] – Today, Canada’s Competition Tribunal dismissed a constitutional challenge brought by Google, ruling that the company cannot claim new administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) under the Competition Act could amount to criminal punishment. The Tribunal rejected Google’s argument, finding that AMPs are designed to deter anticompetitive conduct, not to punish wrongdoing in the criminal sense. With this hurdle cleared, the Competition Bureau’s case against Google’s alleged abuse of dominance in Canada’s online advertising technology market can now proceed.
The ruling is an important development for the future of competition law enforcement in Canada. Had higher AMPs under the Competition Act been deemed unconstitutional, Canada would not be able to levy meaningful financial penalties for anticompetitive conduct going forward. The ruling confirms that Canadian regulators have real tools to hold even the largest corporations accountable under domestic competition law, reassuring for consumers and businesses that depend on fair and open markets.
“Today’s ruling is an important signal that new powers under Canada’s recently strengthened Competition Act are here to stay,” said Keldon Bester, Executive Director of CAMP. “Financial penalties will always be secondary to structural remedies that promote competition, but they remain an important tool for deterring conduct that harms competition. While we wait for the full case to go to trial, the Tribunal’s decision is a welcome affirmation of a stronger defence of competition in Canada.”
Letters: Cost Conscious
March 1, 2026Welcome 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:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP. Now let’s dive in.
How to Talk about the Cost of Living Without Talking about the Cost of LivingIn recent months, the Carney government’s approach to bringing down the cost of living is coming into view. In late January, the Carney government announced an increase to the GST tax credit for low-income Canadians, along with a grab bag of measures to support producers and reference to supporting the work of the Competition Bureau. This week, the government released a video of the Prime Minister laying out his theory of how the government plans to bring down costs for Canadians. The problem? The video spends almost no time talking about bringing down costs for Canadians. The video walks through the story of pandemic supply chain shocks driving increased inflation that has left Canadians with increased costs while wages struggle to catch up. Carney recognizes that while inflation has cooled, food prices continue to lead the average, and Canadians continue to struggle with the cost of putting food on the table. But when it comes to bringing those costs down, the government is sticking with admiring the problem. Instead of putting forward solutions, the Carney government’s approach is limited to a tax credit bump and banking on productivity to eventually bring up wages. We never recommend reading the comments, but let’s get a sample of reactions: “address monopolies,” “stop price gouging,” “we hate oligarchs and monopolies.” We’re not running a bot farm, we swear. Canadians understand that oligopolies have benefitted from the inflation that has dogged the economy in recent years. While additional relief for struggling folks is welcome, the Carney government is leaving a powerful tool on the table: competition. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Financial relief and rising wages paired with assertive action to break up oligopolies would deliver higher paycheques and lower prices at checkout. As an economist who wrote his masters thesis on competition, Carney understands this more than most. That’s why it’s disappointing to see his government tie one hand behind its back in the fight for affordability. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Midlife FitnessThe days of the free Goodlife bag may be over. This week, American private equity giant Apollo announced a strategic minority investment into the privately owned Canadian company Goodlife Fitness, which operates over 400 gym locations under different brands across Canada. The Apollo-Goodlife deal is being pitched as providing the fitness company with additional capital for expansion, but we know from experience what to expect when private equity comes to town. Private equity buying a stake in a company changes the logic driving the business. While business owners gain by building the value of companies, private equity more frequently gains by extracting what value has already been generated. This phenomenon was extensively documented by CAMP fellow Rachel Wasserman in her 2024 report, The Private Equity Playbook. What this extraction process often looks like is the simultaneous raising of prices while pulling down quality. For Goodlife customers this could mean rising membership fees, lower spend on keeping facilities in good shape, and even an end to their iconic free bag on sign up. While certainly no longer a small business, what’s going on at Goodlife is emblematic of a broader trend in Canada. Small and mediums sized businesses are amid a succession crisis, with owners reaching retirement age and having no plan for business continuity. An increasingly popular choice for owners in sectors like dental and veterinary care, for example, is to sell their businesses to private equity-owned conglomerates engaged in roll ups of these once diverse markets. Canadian businesses need to know about different options for succession, like employee ownership, and regulators need to keep an eye on these creeping acquisitions. Having the private equity playbook applied to the Canadian economy is a recipe for a deeply unfit economy. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Netflix is Out, Paramount is InWhat a difference a week makes. After the board of Warner Brothers Discovery declared Netflix the superior buyer, the streaming giant has declined to beat Paramount’s new offer of $111 billion USD, paving the way for Paramount to acquire the entertainment conglomerate. From an anti-monopoly standpoint, very little has changed. Though a Paramount acquisition of Warner Bros. has different contours than a Netflix takeover, the outcome remains the same: consolidation of important entertainment and news markets. One thing that has changed though is the White House’s approach to the transaction. After waffling on whether he would insert himself in the deal process, Paramount’s owner, David Ellison, is directly aligned with Trump administration, and has used their earlier acquisition of CBS News to bring the network in line with the President’s agenda. But the federal government is not the only game in town. California’s state attorney general is currently reviewing the deal, and given the centrality of the entertainment industry to the state economy the stakes are high. In the end, Paramount might consider itself lucky if regulators block the deal. Warner Bros. is a legendary M&A albatross. In 2001, early internet giant AOL purchased Time Warner for $183 billion USD, widely considered one of the worst mergers in history. In 2018, telecom giant AT&T was allowed to acquire the once again independent Time Warner for roughly $108 billion USD, promptly realized the mistake it had made, and spun the company off in 2022 through a merger with Discovery Inc. Now less than four years later, Paramount believes this time will be different. But whether it makes business sense for Paramount is beside the point. Regulators in the U.S. and around the world need to present a strong defense of competition and diversity in the entertainment market and block this illegal transaction. 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 |
Letters: World Leading
February 22, 2026Welcome 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:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP. Now let’s dive in.
We’re Number OneIt’s Olympic season so we’re feeling suitably patriotic at CAMP. Unfortunately, alongside some disappointing hockey results, there’s another grim category in which Canada is leading the world: food inflation. In January, the annual rate of food inflation hit 7.3%, the highest among our G7 peers. The figure is another reminder that despite overall inflation falling, Canadians continue to struggle with elevated and steadily increasing food prices. But what should we expect when we continue to take a wait and see approach to stemming the rising tide of food costs? Thankfully the tide is turning in North America on the belief that we can’t do anything about food prices. In 2022, Mexico broke with economic orthodoxy by striking a bargain with major grocers that slowed the price growth of a basket of staples in exchange for supply-side measures that would increase production. The mood is catching. This week a major Democrat-aligned think tank, the Center for American Progress, released a report arguing for capping the price of a basket of basic goods paired with measures to increase competition and expand future food production. So, what should Canada’s response be? We have powerful tools across both federal and provincial governments to increase competition and bring down prices for Canadians. At the federal level, the government can invest in the Competition Bureau and point those stepped-up resources at the monopolies across the supply chain while flexing the ability fo supply management to tamp down price growth. At the provincial level, governments can ban practices by major grocers like property controls, exclusivity contracts, and supplier kickbacks that kill competition and squeeze consumers. With plenty of tools in the toolbox, we know that the wait and see approach is not delivering. If we want to arrest the rise in the cost of living, we need to intervene in the markets that matter. Canadians Want to Take Back Control of Social MediaThough we are stereotypically agreeable people, there isn’t much that 90% of Canadians agree on. But this week, it turns out that one of those things is reining in the excesses of major social media platforms, especially when it comes to kids. Polling this week shows that 90% of Canadians support an age-based ban on social media platforms and for platforms to be held responsible for the content they show young Canadians. Even for Big Tech critics like us, the level of support is striking. But it shouldn’t be. Canadians deserve a say over how the largest platforms for communication and commerce operate within our borders. These companies hold tremendous power as economic, social, and democratic infrastructure. Since the founding of this country Canadians have understood that companies that play these important roles are require regulation to ensure our interests are protected. Though we may have thought differently at the turn of the millennium, the internet has not changed this logic. Over the past year, the Big Tech regulation conversation has taken place in the shadow of Donald Trump and the Canada-U.S. trade relationship. We’ve been told that if we take a hands-off approach today, we’ll be rewarded with stability tomorrow. But we’ve seen what that’s got us so far. Abandoning the Digital Services Tax, which was projected to raise over $7 billion in annual revenue from digital giants, soothed trade tensions for approximately ten minutes. Canadians are clear that they want a say over how some of the world’s largest companies operate. Policymakers should listen to them. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
American Mom and Pop Supermarkets Take on Food Giant MondelezIn New York City, one of the world’s largest food companies is threatening to take its cookies elsewhere. Mondelez, the multinational maker of familiar brands like Oreos, Ritz, and Wheat Thins, is ending its practice of direct distribution to independent grocery stores. As industry expert Errol Schweizer covers, the decision puts another middleman in between independent grocers and the goods they want to offer their customers. The expected outcome? Up to another dollar per good on top of already rising prices that will squeeze either consumers or the mom-and-pop shops serving them. But the association representing these grocers isn’t taking the decision laying down. They’re filing an antitrust suit against Mondelez arguing that the changes unfairly preferences larger stores with their own distribution infrastructure who will continue to have access to direct distribution pricing. The suit comes as New York lawmakers look to step up their antitrust game with the introduction of the Consumer Groceries Pricing Fairness Act which would expand the powers available to the state’s attorney general to go after similar anticompetitive practices. The case is a reminder of the importance of distribution in retail grocery competition and the value of companies being able to bring their own cases to protect fair competition. In the U.S. and Canada, the infrastructure that independent grocers rely on to compete is increasingly owned by the very superstores they’re competing with. This arrangement means fair competition protected by antitrust laws, including preventing the kind of discrimination that Mondelez is attempting, is more important than ever. We’ll be watching the case closely to see if American policymakers are able to give independent grocers a fair shot at competing. 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 |
Letters: Goodbye Gail
February 15, 2026Welcome 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:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP. Now let’s dive in.
We Hardly Knew Ye: Slater Ousted as U.S. Antitrust ChiefAfter long-simmering tensions between staff at the U.S. Department of Justice who actually wanted to enforce American antitrust laws and the bulldozer of Trump lobbying, the head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, Gail Slater, has “““resigned”””. Described as a competent technocrat trying to survive in a “den of vipers,” Slater was a close ally of Vice President Vance who appeared genuinely committed to enforcing antitrust laws effectively, especially when it came to Big Tech. But it wasn’t long before that commitment ran headfirst into the preeminence of powerful lobbyists in Trump’s orbit. This was clearest in the clash over the HPE-Juniper merger settlement that saw senior DOJ attorney Roger Alford resign in protest over political influence in the enforcement decision. Ultimately, Slater’s performance did not live up to the hopes, including ours, that she would continue the bipartisan effort to rein in American monopolies. While important antitrust cases and appeals were kept afloat, settlements proliferated and no major merger challenges were launched under her watch. Despite Slater’s middling performance, her ousting is most certainly bad news for the future of American antitrust. One thing we’ll be on the lookout for is an attempt at a sweetheart settlement with Ticketmaster instead of the breakup that the DOJ was pursuing. Thankfully, American antitrust is much more than just the DOJ and FTC. For Ticketmaster and other cases, state attorneys general have joined federal enforcers and can keep cases moving even if federal agencies are told to stand down. Slater’s firing puts to rest our confidence in the Trump administration’s approach to antitrust, but that doesn’t mean the American anti-monopoly movement is out of the fight. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
A Very Nerdy Victory LapBear with us as we talk about competition law enforcement guidelines again. Two weeks ago, it was anti-competitive conduct and agreements (rolls right off the tongue). This week it’s mergers. As a refresher, enforcement guidelines are one way the Competition Bureau communicates to the public about how it will enforce the Competition Act. This is particularly important when it comes to mergers, as the guidelines shape the deals that lawyers and bankers bring out of boardrooms. Stricter guidelines mean less cavalier consolidation attempts. In 2024, CAMP participated in the Competition Bureau’s consultation on updating its merger enforcement guidelines for the first time in over a decade. In late 2025, the Bureau released their proposed update based on what they heard. In a welcome development, the Bureau has incorporated nearly all of CAMP’s recommendations in the proposed guidelines. This means the Bureau is communicating a much stricter approach to potentially harmful mergers than we’ve seen in the past. The Bureau’s enforcement guidelines are just one part of defending competition in Canada but we’re taking the opportunity for a victory lap. In 2023 and 2024 we were able to get major amendments to the Competition Act across the line, and these updated guidelines are another step in the process of delivering more competition for Canadians. Now it’s up to the Bureau to make good on their own guidance. It’s one thing to talk about stricter merger laws, it’s another thing to actually enforce them. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Europe Moves Quickly to Block Meta’s AI BanThis week, the European Commission notified Meta that it would be an imposing an interim action against the tech giant’s blocking of third-party AI apps integrated with WhatsApp. Back in October of 2025, Meta announced it was changing the terms of its WhatsApp program for businesses, effectively banning third-party (e.g. non-Meta) AI assistants from interacting with users on the platform. The Commission argues that closing off access to WhatsApp and its users, Meta is weakening competition in the market for AI assistants. While we often think of WhatsApp as a way to connect with friends and family, it’s just as important as a way for businesses to interact with customers around the world, and with billions of users worldwide, WhatsApp is a critical channel of communications and commerce. A key tenet of communication regulation is the prevention of unjust discrimination when it comes to access to communications networks. By preventing Meta from favouring its own AI assistants, the Commission is making good on that principle of non-discrimination. Europe’s action is also notable because of its speed. European competition law enforcers opened the investigation just last December and made use of a temporary order to stop the potentially harmful conduct while the Commission determines the full extent of the harms. Typical antitrust investigations can go on for years, with competition-killing conduct continuing through litigation and possible appeals. By moving quickly and using temporary orders, European regulators are keeping markets contestable and putting the onus on Big Tech to put an end to its anti-competitive restrictions. 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 |
Tim Wu
Keldon Bester
This is a custom heading element.
Tim Wu is the Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology at Columbia Law School. Tim served as Special Assistant to the President for Technology and Competition Policy in the Biden White House and is the author of a number of books on competition and monopoly including The Curse of Bigness (2018), The Attention Merchants (2016) and The Master Switch (2010).