April 19, 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:

• Survey finds addressing monopolized markets is a priority for majority of Canadian small businesses
• CBC Marketplace investigation catches Loblaws and Sobeys overcharging customers for meat… again
• US jury finds Live Nation Ticketmaster is a monopoly, paving the way for a breakup

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

Now let’s dive in.

80% of Small Businesses Say Tackling Monopoly Should Be Government Priority

Every Canadian feels the pressure that monopolies put on their pocketbooks. But while we often think of their harms from a consumer perspective, monopolies are just as dangerous for businesses on the wrong side of concentrated markets. This is particularly the case for small and medium-sized businesses trying to carve out a competitive niche among the giants of our economy. A new study out this week from the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses (CFIB) makes clear that small businesses want something done about it: 80% ofsmall and medium businesses surveyed agree that addressing concentrated markets should be a priority for government.

Consolidation has a unique set of harms for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Beyond high prices and shabby customer service, monopolies reduce the freedom of entrepreneurs to decide how they run their own businesses. Any business that depends on a monopoly for a key input or relies on a single customer for the majority of their business knows the score: they’ve got a partner setting the terms of their business, whether they like it or not. Flexing monopoly muscle against other businesses is one of the key ways monopolies cement their dominance, extracting unfair terms unavailable to competitors with less market clout.

The results of the CFIB survey remind us that taking on monopolies is a pro-business effort. By breaking open the monopoly bottlenecks in our economy we can make Canada a better place not just for Canadians as consumers and workers, but as entrepreneurs as well. If we ignore the harms of monopolies on businesses, we set ourselves up for disappointment as we try to spur growth from markets increasingly hostile to entrepreneurship. The message from Canadian small businesses is clear: government must do something about Canada’s monopolized markets.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• ​Wealthsimple bets on X and Canadian users aren’t happy (National Observer)

The Price is Wrong, Again: Grocers Found Shortchanging Customers for a Second Time

Canadian grocery giant Loblaws is proud of its digital prowess. The website for Loblaw Digital, the company’s in-house tech team, boasts that they build future-forward experiences that solve complex problems. They’re not wrong: the team is responsible for coordinating grocery deliveries across the country and using data to personalize attractive offers for millions of shoppers. The only problem? These advanced capabilities aren’t spread evenly across their business.

For the second time, major grocers Loblaws and Sobeys have been found shortchanging customers in the meat aisle, underweighting meat and charging customers for more than they’re taking home. This was a year after a similar investigation by CBC Marketplace found the same conduct occurring and major grocers committed to getting the problem under control. What does this mean for consumers? On top of already inflated food prices, Canadians are paying premium prices for the plastic and Styrofoam packaging their food comes in, to the tune of potentially millions of dollars. For Loblaws, advanced supply chain logistics are a breeze. Setting the scale at the deli counter correctly? Not so much.

Accurate pricing is the foundation of functioning markets. If customers can’t trust what they see on the shelf, that process starts to break down. It shouldn’t be the job of customers to bring their own scales to see if they’re getting what they paid for. What’s worse, because we’ve allowed our grocery markets to consolidate, shortchanged customers who want to take their business elsewhere may be out of luck. Canadians need clear action to restore trust in the grocery aisle. Far-reaching inspections of grocery weights, transparent reporting, and steep fines are table stakes in response to this kind of deception.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• ​Clickbait Cures: Unmasking the Deceptive Health Ad Infrastructure on Meta and Google (Reset.Tech)
• Van Dyck, The Fair Play Façade: How the American Sports Economy Became a Laboratory for Corporate Power, From Pee Wee to the Pros (American Economic Liberties Project)

Never Give Up: Jury Finds Ticketmaster is a Monopoly Despite Loser DOJ Settlement

After some high antitrust drama, an American jury has found that Live Nation Ticketmaster is a monopoly when in the market for big ticket live entertainment. If you recall, last month both the judge and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lead prosecutor were blindsided by a last-minute settlement worked out between the live entertainment giant and DOJ leadership. Put simply, the settlement was weak, especially with Ticketmaster’s track record of not abiding by agreements with regulators. Thankfully, antitrust in the U.S. is not a one-man show.

Despite the settlement, the many state attorneys general that originally brought the suit alongside the DOJ kept the case moving, continuing litigation without the support of their federal partner. The jury decision is important because it opens the door for real remedies to Live Nation Ticketmaster’s power in live entertainment, not the band aids proposed in the heavily lobbied for settlement. This is a major victory for the concertgoers that Ticketmaster executives joked about “robbing blind” who have had to suffer through high ticket prices, exorbitant fees, and the sophisticated scalpers the company let run rampant.

The outcome is also helpful to efforts to derail the Canadian wing of Live Nation Ticketmaster’s monopoly. A suit by the Consumer’s Council of Canada against the live entertainment giant may soon head to the Competition Tribunal, and a positive outcome in the U.S. case is wind in the sails of a northern challenge. We still need to wait and see what the judge orders in the U.S. case, but the monopoly finding is a reminder that consumers know a monopoly when they see one.

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​

April 12, 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:

• A new paper from Statistics Canada finds a clear link between competition and labour productivity
• Meta moves quick to remove ads for attorneys seeking litigants for platform harms cases
• New York City moves on click to cancel rule to make life easier for subscribers

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

Now let’s dive in.

Statistics Canada Research Finds Competition Drives Productivity Growth

As a Canadian think tank, we are required by law to bemoan Canada’s lacklustre productivity growth. Thankfully, this week Statistics Canada provided reminded us that we’re sitting on the solution to Canada’s productivity woes: competition. In a new report from the statistical agency’s research branch, analysts find a strong correlations between market structure and the productivity of companies in those markets. This means that if we want to improve Canadian productivity we need the stronger competition law enforcement recommended by the paper’s authors.

The study suggests that moderate levels of concentration, say a market split between five players, balances competition with allowing companies to bring their costs down by scaling up. While in most markets Canadians would be happy to have five options to choose from, we know from experience that even this kind of moderate concentration has its limits. Look no further than Canada’s famously profitable banking sector split between the Big 5 (sorry, National Bank). Outside the scope of the study, firsthand experience reminds us that we can feel the effects of oligopolies even with the appearance of competitive alternatives.

The study finds that competition is critical not just for traditional industries, but also emerging markets on the frontier of technological development. One of the key mechanisms through which competition drives productivity is through the invention, innovation, and adoption of new technologies. Firms at the frontier that face stiffer competition are more likely to invest in new applications and ways of doing business. Put simply, you run faster when you’re being chased. It’s easy to go cross-eyed wading through the avalanche of studies on Canada’s productivity problem, but we believe this new paper is worth the risk.

Metagaming the System

Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, loves to play possum. When it comes to getting the social media giant to do anything about the effects their platforms on mental health, political polarization, or scams and fraud, they’re helpless. They often claim they’re not responsible for the content posted on their platforms or that monitoring and moderating content and ads is a herculean task. But when it comes to threats to their business model, there’s no limit to their reach.

This week it was reported that Meta has been acting quickly to remove ads for attorneys seeking litigants harmed by the effects of Meta’s platforms. This comes on the heels of recent U.S. court losses where the company’s addictive design and inaction were found to have put children in harm’s way. Contrast this quick action with Meta’s approach to scam ads, which their own research suggests account for 10% of advertising on their platforms. Because these ads represent revenue instead of a potential source of accountability, the company has allowed them to proliferate.

Conservative estimates suggest that Canadians lose hundreds of millions of dollars every year to scams. As CAMP argued in a key report earlier this year, holding companies like Meta responsible for scam ads is essential to mitigating their harms. So long as these ads represent a net benefit to a company’s bottom line, inaction will always be the path of least resistance. By introducing stronger privacy protections and changing the incentives that allow companies to profit from scam ads, platforms like Meta can put their powers to work protecting Canadians instead of covering their own ass.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Von Thun and Stienon, Fighting for Democracy Amid the AI Race: Designing Tech Industrial Policy to Promote Democratic Economic Governance (Open Markets Institute)
• Reedy & Tucker, U.S. Justice Department reportedly opens investigation into NFL for potential anticompetitive practices (CBC)
• Thomas, EFF is Leaving X (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

Competition is a Click Away

In the latest in a series of pro-consumer policies, this week New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed rule changes to make it easier for New Yorkers to cancel subscriptions. “Click to cancel” provisions, which require subscriptions to be as easy to cancel as they are to sign up for, are extremely popular with consumers. They make subscription terms simpler, forbid the customer service labyrinths that too many of us are familiar with, and force companies to compete on quality instead of annoyance level.

Companies have employed all sorts of ingenious strategies to keep unhappy consumers from unsubscribing, a set of tactics referred to as the roach motel. Companies make users cancel by phone, setting them up for hours of wait times and possible disconnection. They make subscribers pay off the rest of their term or enact ridiculous cancellation fees. They also refuse customers access to their own data to make switching providers unappealing. All in service of keeping dissatisfied customers paying.

Sound familiar? These tactics are all too common in Canada. While the CRTC has recently blocked telcosfrom charging fees when users cancel or modify their subscriptions, Canadian provinces need to get in the game. Streaming services, gym memberships, newspaper subscriptions, the list goes on. Each of these should be as easy to leave as they are to join. By enacting click to cancel legislation, provincial governments can ensure companies compete on price and quality instead of the intensity of headache consumers are willing to endure.

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​

​

April 5, 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:

• Indie chocolatiers offer some relief this Easter after years of rising prices and shrinkflation
• Canadians are ready for regulation of social media, but the details on how it happens matter
• Musk’s bogus online advertising antitrust lawsuit gets tossed by U.S. judge

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

Now let’s dive in.

Little Chocolate Helps Easter Stay Sweet

This Easter, Canadian families are going to have to shell out more than ever for chocolate. The Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhouse University finds that the price of a pound of chocolate has increased 15% in the last year. This is just the latest wave of price increases consumers are seeing after the trading price of cocoa has increased by 500% since 2022. The story of the commodity price increase is very much one of external shocks: climate change, deforestation, and supply disruptions have all lent a hand. But the increase in consumer prices has not shown up uniformly in the market, and the reason is competition.

Big Chocolate has been cornering competitors and consolidating the market for over 50 years. Canada’s chocolate market is quite concentrated, with five international players dominating: Mars Wrigley, Mondelez International, Nestlé, Hershey and Lindt & Sprüngli. These firms dominate the mass market for chocolate offering products like milk chocolate, and candy bars. These candymakers have responded to rising cocoa prices by adulterating their products with oils and emulsifiers, shrinking sizes while keeping prices flat, and increasing the efficiency of cocoa extraction. All this means consumers get less while paying more.

But the story is different for independent producers. Craft chocolatiers and their direct relationships with cocoa farmers have become crucial to maintaining their supply and the high quality that allows them to survive. Rather than lowering quality, they’ve been competing on it and increasing product variety. And rather than passing higher costs onto consumers, the indies are taking a margin hit and absorbing the rise to stay competitive.

The Canadian chocolate market is a reminder that a diversity of businesses matters. Different companies with different business models are delivering for consumers when the big players are offering lower quality at a higher price. This Easter is going to be tough on the pocketbooks of Canadians, but competition from indies will give us a chance to splurge on an extra chocolate bunny or two.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• ​Canada's role in the Strait of Hormuz - Crypto donations to political parties - Prediction markets coming to Canada (Mornings with Simi)

The Draw and Limits of Social Media Bans in Canada

Canadians are ready to regulate social media platforms. This week, polling found that nearly 75% of Canadians support banning kids under 16 from social media. This enthusiasm comes as peers in Australia, France and the UK consider or move ahead with their own bans. The appeal of bans for minors is understandable. They present a straightforward way to protect children from harm online. But reality is unfortunately more complicated. If Canada is going to pursue a ban, it must be matched with effective platform regulation if we hope to address the underlying issues with platforms and avoid creating new ones.

The first complication is how to identify a minor in the first place. To date, two approaches have emerged. Australia has made platforms responsible for determining the age of their users, necessitating collecting the data of minors and creating a financial incentive for lax enforcement. Another route is to require users to present official ID for age verification. By linking online activity to official identification, the picture that corporations and governments have about the activity of individuals online would become even more complete.

Beyond privacy and rights concerns, the major gap in social media bans is that they leave the issues with platforms untouched. Without matching bans with effective platform regulation, we’d be shutting the gate to garden while letting the weeds grow. To pull those weeds, we need stronger privacy protections, greater transparency, and accountability for systems engineered to keep eyes on screens. Just one example, legislative proposals like the Online Harm Act that create a duty of care for platforms are needed to protect children and adults alike online. Canadians recognize the issues with social media and are ready for action. It’s the responsibility of policy makers to ensure that action gets to the heart of the matter.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Newman, Lawless Antitrust (Fordham Law Review)
• Bednar and Corbett, Ottawa Hands Billions to Firms Calling Themselves Canadian. Most Aren’t (The Walrus)
• Vronces, Buyer Beware (Medium of Exchange)

Musk’s Bogus Antitrust Lawsuit Hits the Brakes

Last week, a judge threw out an antitrust lawsuit brought by Elon Musk against some of the world’s largest advertisers. Musk alleged that advertisers colluded to withdraw advertising spend from X, Musk’s rebranded Twitter, causing billions in lost revenue. Musk claimed this was blackmail and against the interests of those advertisers since X is such a valuable advertising platform. Defendants argued that rather than colluding, they each decided to end spending independently. The judge agreed, and it’s not hard to see why.

Musk is no stranger to conspiracy theories. But his real enemy here is market competition functioning as it should. Rather than a vast conspiracy, advertisers no longer wanted their products shown on a platform that has devolved into mostly rage-bait, hate speech, and literal Nazi propaganda. Most businesses don’t want their brands associated with this kind of content, and so the decision to walk away made commercial sense.

Competition is a process of experimentation. Successful experiments are rewarded by flocking customers, unsuccessful experiments… not so much. Rather than a boycott conspiracy, advertisers jumping ship is the result of an experiment in how much of a garbage fire an online platform can become. We should add that Musk is no stranger to boycotts, launching unsuccessful attempts at both Wikipedia and Netflix in the past. By throwing out the spurious lawsuit, the judge in this case has taken an important step in preserving the ability of competition to teach the lesson Musk is currently learning.

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​

​

March 29, 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:

• Canada’s Competition Bureau kicks off its review of the Paramount-Warner Brothers Discovery merger
• City of Toronto announces public grocery pilot and takes aim at property controls and algorithmic pricing
• Meta loses in lawsuit targeting their intentional use of addicting techniques to keep people on the platform

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

Now let’s dive in.

Competition Bureau Begins its Review of Paramount-Warner Bros Discovery

While the attention has understandably been on the homegrown drama surrounding Netflix and Paramount’s dueling offers and the intrusion of President Trump, don’t count Canada out in the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. This week we saw that the Competition Bureau has kicked off its review of the entertainment megadeal, beginning the first 30 day timer in the competition law enforcer’s merger review process. While both companies are American, the transaction would have real impacts on multiple fronts in Canada.

First, for consumers, a streaming market that has already seen increasing prices would further consolidate and throw the fate of Crave, the largest Canadian streaming service, into question given its reliance on Warner Bros. content. Paramount competes with Crave through its own streaming offering, Paramount+, and its enthusiasm for sharing the studio’s crown jewels is likely to be low. The merger also has important implications for the Canadian workers that produce the content each studio offers. Of the nearly $10 billion spent on film and television production in Canada annually, just about half is for foreign studios like Paramount and Warner Bros.

Mergers mean less, not more, and with the combined Paramount-WBD entity coming out of the deal holding approximately $79 billion USD in debt, the hunt for savings would be on. While the Bureau will be tempted to sit back and let federal and state enforcers in the U.S. sort this out, this would be a mistake. Canadian consumers and workers are implicated in this transaction and deserve a say over the future of entertainment in our own country. While the decision to block the transaction may be out of the Bureau’s hands, a strong stance on the megamerger is the only way to ensure the interests of Canadians make the final cut.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• ​Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Under Review By Canada's Competition Bureau (Do Not Pass Go)
• ​We must stop the scourge of prediction-market gambling coming to Canada (The Globe and Mail)
• ​The dangers of prediction-market gambling coming to Canada (Shaye Ganam)

Toronto Gets Serious About its Grocery Market

On Friday, Toronto City Council passed a motion to develop a strategy for municipally operated grocery stores across the city, aiming to provide greater access and more affordable food for Torontonians. Publicly operated grocery stores are gaining steam in North America, with New York City’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani and NDP leadership hopeful Avi Lewis pitching the idea as part of their platforms. At CAMP we welcome the potential for more competition in the grocery space, but a public grocer is only one part of the puzzle. Thankfully, the motion reflects a broader focus on making competition in grocery work for Canadians.

Amendments by Mayor Olivia Chow direct city staff to find solutions to problems hampering competition, public or private, in the grocery market today. In the mayor’s sights are property controls that allow grocers to control where their competitors set up shop and increased transparency in the prices shoppers see on the grocery aisle. The issue of property controls in particular is garnering increased attention with Manitoba’s move to ban the practice and Ontario Liberal Party leadership hopeful Eric Lombardi calling for Ontario to do the same.

At CAMP we’re glad to see the City of Toronto get into the fight for more affordable groceries with a mix of pro-competition and pro-consumer ideas. While the announcement of a consultation is rarely thrilling, the study will allow the city to hear from experts, local communities, and industry about how grocery markets can work better for Torontonians. Every level of government has a role to play in making life more affordable for Canadians, and Canada’s largest city has the chance to lead by example.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Gindin, Superdependence: On the Canadian Automotive Industry (Phenomenal World)
• Munro and Lamb, Northern Potential: Advancing Canada’s AI Ambitions (CSA Public Policy Centre)
• Nowicki, Trump’s Corrupt Gift to Big Real Estate (The Economic Populist)

Meta’s Bad Bad Not Good Week

Meta suffered multiple legal losses in the U.S. this week, opening up a potential vulnerability in the legal armour that has protected the company to date. A jury in Los Angeles ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million USD in damages to a woman who argued that the companies engineered their platforms to be addictive, harming her mental health over decades of use. Another case in New Mexico saw Meta ordered to pay $375 million USD for exposing minors to harmful content in breach of state laws. Finally, a Delaware court ruled that Meta’s insurers don’t have to provide legal representation in lawsuits against the company because they were based on intentional conduct.

Companies like Google and Meta typically rely on U.S. laws like section 230 to exclude them from liability for what their users post on their platforms. While the section’s intention to preserve free speech online is noble, the provision has ballooned to shield Meta and Google from outcomes that are product of the design of the platforms themselves. By focusing on that intentional design rather than the harmful content itself, the wins this week show that an important gap has been found that could deliver accountability while preserving free speech.

Nearly every piece of content we see online is curated by algorithms to maximize engagement and accordingly the value of advertising on the platform. Whether it’s turning a blind eye to scams or encouraging addictive designs, evidence is mounting that these companies are well aware of the systematic harms their platforms generate. By focusing on the systems rather than the content itself, the court wins this week give some hope that the era of these platforms being above the law may be over.

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​

​

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​

​