Letters: Out of Commission
November 23, 2025Welcome 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.
Canada Needs a Commissioner That Builds on Boswell’s LegacyAfter serving nearly seven years as the Commissioner of Competition, head of Canada’s Competition Bureau, Matthew Boswell has announced that he will step down as of December 17th. Under Boswell’s leadership, the Competition Bureau began its transformation into a modern competition law enforcer. The Bureau pushed for stronger tools to protect competition and consumers, investigated markets like grocery, real estate and gas stations, and picked fights with some of the largest companies in the country and on the planet. The Bureau fought hard but unsuccessfully against the Rogers-Shaw merger in Canada’s oligopoly telecom market, and is currently suing Google for their monopoly in online advertising. Boswell will be missed, but his successor can build on the work begun during his tenure. In the 2023 and 2024 amendments to the Competition Act, the Bureau was given important new tools to keep Canada’s economy fair, competitive, and affordable. A strong Commissioner that builds on instead of reversing Boswell’s progress will be key to using these tools to deliver for Canadians. This is a critical time. The monopoly tax on Canadians from inflated prices in telecom, banking and grocery costs us billions every year, keeping the cost of living a top concern for citizens. From beyond our borders, major tech companies pose a direct threat to our sovereignty. If the Carney government truly wants to be hawkish on competition, hiring a worthy successor to Boswell is a necessary first step. Placating the interests of Bay Street with a weak Commissioner would set the stage for further consolidation and rollup across our economy, easing the worries of monopolists and making life less affordable. Instead, Canada’s next Commissioner should take up Boswell’s legacy and complete the evolution of the Competition Bureau into an effective and vigilant defender of the interests of Canadians. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
The Secret Ingredient is Competition PolicyNo surprise to readers of Letters, but Canada is facing challenges on multiple fronts. This week, CAMP co-founder Robin Shaban has a new policy memo out with the Public Policy Forum showing how we won’t be able to meet those challenges without a better use of competition policy. Markets do not arise or function in a vacuum. They are shaped by policy, regulation, laws and standards at national and international levels. Competition policy is an essential foundation for fairer markets, creating the conditions for entrepreneurs and businesses to enter and compete in markets. Across the world, countries are grappling with the effects of consolidated economic power and its effects on our economies and societies. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the outsized role that U.S. technology firms play in how we connect, communicate and engage in commerce every day. Through expansion and acquisition, these firms have established themselves as gatekeepers in key markets. They control not only many technology products and platforms, but infrastructure, advertising, and the marketplaces that vendors and consumers alike depend on. But this challenge is stirring responses across the globe. In the EU, the UK and Brazil, regulators are building capacity and developing new tools to identify where these players have an outsized influence and begin the process of reining them in. While Canada has made strides in bringing our competition policy in the modern era, our pushback against the dominance of Big Tech remains stalled. More must be done to ensure that Canadian citizens and businesses can benefit from truly fair markets. As Shaban points out, our work is far from over. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
FTC Loses Case to Break Up MetaMeta has won its antitrust case against the FTC, with the judge rejecting the FTC’s call to separate Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to increase competition in the social networking market. Despite the FTC’s argument that Meta used acquisitions to consolidate their market power, their case failed on its approach to defining the relevant market. The FTC tried to separate social networking from social media, a boundary that Judge Boasberg did not agree with. In his view, Meta has lots of competitors, such as YouTube and TikTok, and the real competition is over a more basic resource, user’s time and attention, that he did not agree Meta held a monopoly over. The outcome is a disappointing one, given a breakup would straightforwardly provide more competition in both the social media and online advertising markets. It is also a reminder of the value of a more assertive defense of competition when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. When Meta acquired Instagram in 2012, people like antitrust scholar Tim Wu correctly predicted that these mergers and acquisitions would lead to the consolidation of key internet markets. While Instagram and WhatsApp are the most notable, Meta has acquired over one hundred companies over the last twenty years. The result has been a moat that, while appearing to be challenged by companies like TikTok, continues to print bumper crop online advertising profits every quarter. The fact is that Meta, even if it competes with a few Big Tech rivals, wields an enormous amount of control over user’s time and attention of internet users. Regardless of whether this power is relatively greater than its supposed competitors, it remains a problem from the perspective of competition, privacy, fraud prevention, or child safety. Today, Meta can rest easy, knowing their empire built on emotional manipulation and scams will live to see another day, but the fight for a monopoly free internet continues. 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 |
Rogers customers complain of hours spent on hold as service reps laid off
CBC
Rogers customers tell CBC’s Go Public they’re frustrated after spending hours on hold trying to resolve basic issues. Meanwhile, insiders say the company is increasingly relying on AI assistance to handle customer service calls.
Letters: Cause for Concern
November 16, 2025Welcome 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.
Bureau: Rental Software Not Popular Enough to be a ProblemThis week the Competition Bureau concluded its investigation into the use of algorithmic pricing software, or “revenue management software” in the Canadian rental housing market. Their conclusion is a headscratcher, and a reminder of the issues still present in Canada’s competition law. The Bureau outlined its concerns with the use of revenue management software, but found it was not used widely enough to warrant intervention. While the use of these tools had increased in recent years, 2024 saw a sharp drop in their implementation, possibly related to the ongoing American antitrust lawsuit covering the same conduct. The purpose of these pricing tools is to maximize revenue by finding the highest possible rent a landlord can charge. When used at scale, these algorithms have been shown to facilitate what is known as “tacit collusion,” where prices between competitors converge and move in lockstep based on these pricing recommendations. This kind of pricing software fundamentally changes the way prices are set, giving landlords access to information that there would otherwise be competitive barriers to accessing. That information then feeds the pricing guidance that can drive anticompetitive convergence, possibly without the knowledge of the landlord or property management company. The outcome of the investigation is a disappointing reminder that Canada’s competition law can still find harmful conduct but only act when the harm becomes “substantial.” We should recognize that this kind of technology is anticompetitive in its very purpose, not just when it is deployed at scale. Canada’s rental market remains in a crisis of both supply and affordability and saying something is concerning but stopping short of acting in that context leaves Canadians in the lurch. Thankfully the Bureau is not the last word on rental pricing software, and provinces can put a stop to the use of these tools in already overheated rental markets. Canada needs clear rules on the use of algorithmic pricing, ensuring that whether or not they concern the Bureau, renters are protected from anticompetitive conduct in such a key market. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰Controlling the CompetitionWhile their rental pricing software investigation has ended, other Bureau investigations continue apace. This week, CBC provided an in-depth summary of the Bureau’s investigation into the use of property controls by grocery giants Empire (Sobeys) and George Weston (Loblaws) in the Halifax area. The investigation has overcome hurdles, including a challenge by Empire to block the Bureau’s request for documentation, including customer behaviour data, that was ultimately dismissed by the courts. While both companies have made commitments to stop the use of property controls, CBC found properties in the Halifax area that were still restricted by these agreements. Property controls are clauses in rental or sale agreements that restrict the use of commercial properties. They can prohibit landlords from renting other properties to competing businesses or stop a land buyer from operating or leasing to specific kinds of businesses going forward. Property controls are useful for big grocers because of their ability to reinforce dominant positions. Their size that gives them leverage- they may be stable, “anchor tenants” in a commercial area that landlords will seek to please, and they also function as large landowners themselves. This create barriers to the expansion or creation of smaller competing grocers, because commercial space suitable for grocery stores is already limited due to its specialized nature. Property controls can blunt competitive pressure, limiting options for consumers and keeping prices high. Of course, the competitive issues in the food system go well beyond the land that grocery stores sit on, but investigating property controls is a good start. Just like with rental pricing software, the Bureau is not the only game in town, and more provinces should follow Manitoba’s lead in banning the use of these restrictions to make sure Canadians get more grocery competition sooner. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Google Says Go Easy on MeSay it with us: Google is a monopoly. You’re in good company, because authorities in the U.S., E.U., and Canada agree with you. Google’s monopoly is most intense in the search and advertising markets that continue to power their business. Google’s monopoly reaches across the advertising stack: they make products that allow advertisers to buy ad space, publishers to sell ad space, and they own the marketplace where auctions for ad space are held. Google built this monopoly with acquisitions, strategic innovations, and decades of anticompetitive practices, including rigging bids and favoring their own products over competitors. The question now is what to do about it. As Europe moves to conclude its antitrust efforts against the search giant, Google has some suggestions. In response to the finding that they have a monopoly in the online advertising ecosystem, Google has recommended that the European Commission order them to empower their users and pinky-promise to stop the harmful conduct they’ve repeatedly been found engaging in. Unsurprisingly, what Google’s remedy wish list does not include is the durable solution that will prevent future abuses of monopoly power: a breakup. Antitrust works best when it changes the market structures that have generated harm rather than slaps on the wrist for bad behaviour. Google’s goal is to avoid this outcome with some placating promises to cease its anticompetitive practices, but we’re far past the time for behavioral remedies. Structural problems need structural solutions, and Google is in the midst of using its advertising monopoly to build an AI juggernaut set to dominate the next major technology cycle. Despite the headwinds from the Trump administration, Europe needs to stand firm and pursue divestment if it wants to have a meaningful impact on this important market. Whether in the form of break ups or assertive legislation, countries around the world must continue to the work to recapture even a semblance of fairness, transparency, and regulatory agency in online advertising before it becomes a gateway to the next generation of market dominance. 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 |
Why Canada’s economy needs more competition
Canada is at a crossroads. U.S. tariff attacks, rising global competition and declining productivity all threaten our prosperity and place in the world.
If Canada wants to compete and win, it needs to do more than kick start major projects and ramp up energy exports, it needs to finally get serious about competition within its borders.
Read the full article here.
Letters: Budget Competition
November 9, 2025[Apologies for the double send folks, this time with content] 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:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP Now let’s dive in.
Budget 2025: Bright Spots but a Missed Opportunity on CompetitionWhat’s in a word? Canada’s 2025 federal budget includes nearly 40 mentions of competition, an improvement from the count in the Liberal’s campaign platform (zero, for reference). At a time when the cost-of-living remains top of mind for Canadians, the increase is a welcome development. But ultimately the substance of the budget leaves Canadians looking for some relief with little to be excited about. First, the good. The budget outlines a bold approach to open banking, which will allow smaller competitors to enter Canada’s oligopoly banking and financial services sector. Once implemented, it will be easier for Canadians to control their own financial data and move between competing offers from banks. The budget also ends absurd fees for moving investment accounts between providers, further reducing competitive frictions. Rumours of the government moving against non-competes in federally regulated sectors also proved to be true, shifting the balance towards workers in fields like banking, telecommunications, and transportation. But for many Canadians looking for relief, the budget’s approach to competition will hardly feel “generational.” The budget includes no boost to the resources of Canada’s competition cop, the Competition Bureau that CAMP pushed for in our own pre-budget submission. There is also no action to improve the state of competition in Canada’s food chain, tackling the monopolies in markets from seeds to grocery shelves. Earlier this fall, the federal government promised to be “hawkish” on competition, but so far, the budget is a slow start to these efforts. A serious commitment to affordability from the federal government means empowering the Competition Bureau, federal regulators, and provincial governments to rein in the monopolists squeezing Canadians. Canadians are in the mood for a transformational approach to competition, and Budget 2025 falls well short of our competitive potential. Wu: Canada Needs to Stand Up to Big Tech’s Age of ExtractionTim Wu is on a heater in Canada. In the week of the launch of his new book, The Age of Extraction, Wu has pieces in both the Financial Post and the Globe and Mail. In both pieces, the Columbia professor, CAMP advisory board member, and all-around anti-monopoly champion has the same message: Canada must take more action on combating the monopolies of Big Tech as they transition into the most extractive period of their existence. Big Tech’s arch mirrors that of other historical monopolies: get a pass for creating and connecting new markets, generating efficiencies and growth in the process. But once that phase of growth winds down, the consequences of consolidation become clear, and a new business model based on extraction becomes the norm. Economic extraction is a familiar feeling to Canadians. In so many aspects of our lives – banks, grocers, telecom, airlines - our markets are shaped by a small number of firms that set the terms of competition. Without true competition, incumbents rather than consumers, workers, or challengers hold the balance of power and make sure to constantly remind us of where we stand. Today the harmful effects of consolidation are clear to see: unaffordability, unaccountability, and growing unfairness and inequality. Not simply admiring the problem, Wu advocates for several straightforward interventions to make our economic lives fairer. Regulate the tech platforms that favour their own products and marketplaces and discriminate against customers with nontransparent pricing, all while paying a pittance in tax. Wu also advocates for public options, both as competitors and to create balance in markets, a role all but ignored by policymakers to date. Wu presents Canada, and all other countries wrangling with Big Tech, with a stark choice: take bold action or settle in for the Age of Extraction. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
U.K. Zooms in on Getty-Shutterstock Stock Photo MergerThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the U.K.’s competition cop, has rejected the first set of proposals from Getty and Shutterstock to resolve competition issues posed by the $3.7 billion USD stock photo empire merger. Instead of accepting their opening offer, the CMA has elected to do a deeper dive after preliminary research found the potential for a substantial loss of competition, harming the businesses, creative professionals and associations that benefit from a competitive stock photo market. For photographers, selling their work to stock photography companies is a way to make a living in an increasingly cutthroat market. Less competition for stock photography would see photographers squeezed at the same time as the businesses that use stock photography see prices increase. Getty is also a key provider of “editorial content,” licensing photos of real-life events to already struggling news organizations. As the use of AI images increases, lower pay and higher costs for real-life images could accelerate the shift towards an increasingly deepfake understanding of the world around us. Getty and Shutterstock each maintain their position because of the networks of photographers and clients established over years, creating a high barrier for potential competitors in both the stock and editorial markets. Getty-Shutterstock could also raise costs for companies looking to build AI models on their vast trove of images. Critics may ask who cares about the market for photos of fake coworkers fake collaborating, but Getty-Shutterstock is an example of the range of costs we pay when we take markets for granted. 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 |
