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 |
Letters: Does What It Says on the Tin
November 2, 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.
Government Aims to Empower Workers by Banning Non-competes in Regulated IndustriesIn the leadup to the upcoming federal budget on Nov 4th, the government has announced it will propose legislation banning non-compete agreements in federally regulated sectors like banking. While the government has committed to a consultation before proposing the legislation, this is welcome news on the labour and monopoly front. Non-compete agreements, clauses in employment contracts that limit the ability of employees to quit and move to competitors or start their own competing businesses, are a serious drag on the power of workers. Non-competes are just one example of how oligopolies hurt not only consumers, but workers as well. By imposing non-competes, companies attempt to extend their control over their employees to their professional futures, reducing the incentive to compete for workers through higher pay, better working conditions, and potential for advancement. They also weaken the future productivity and dynamism of our economy by making it more difficult for entrepreneurs to take their knowledge and create competitive alternatives to their oligopoly employers. This move is enough step in the right direction in the fight for workers to have more control over their professional lives. Ontario banned non-compete agreements in 2021, and other provinces would be wise to follow suit. While the FTC under the Trump administration has given up its defense of workers by abandoning its proposed national ban on non-competes, Canada is well positioned to keep up the momentum. In fact, a strong stance against labour restrictions and for labour mobility contributes to making Canada a more attractive destination for the workers of the world. While CAMP is hoping for more pro-competition content in the federal budget, the government’s proposed ban on non-competes is a positive sign that the government is taking the multi-faceted harms of monopoly seriously. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Sowing the Seeds of ConsolidationIn front of the U.S. Senate this week, farmers and their allies testified on the skyrocketing costs of bringing crops to market. While participants named several culprits, including tariffs on Canadian fertilizer ingredients, one common issue emerged: the rampant consolidation that has occurred in the markets for agricultural inputs. Farmers in the U.S. and Canada alike are facing off against consolidated industries for nearly all of their core inputs, such as seeds, fertilizer, and farming equipment. In corn, soy and cotton seed markets, Dupont and Monsanto together control over two thirds of the US market and dominate world seed markets as well. Incidentally, the cost of seeds has risen, on average, 270%- with some costs rising as much as 463%, with up to 70% of the cost being “seed royalties” paid to dominant multinationals. Agricultural equipment manufacturers and dealers continue to consolidate, squeezing farmers with proprietary software that cannot be repaired without the company’s blessing. The same is true for fertilizer. Beyond rising prices, monopolized markets rob independent farmers of control over their own businesses and livelihoods. Consolidation means less bargaining power for farmers, making them vulnerable to the whims of the companies on both sides of their business. For big agribusiness, this dispossession is an opportunity, with rising prices fueling a dramatic rise in consolidation of farmland ownership in the hands of multinational conglomerates and investors. Though we’ve said it a hundred times before, until it changes it will bear repeating: to create a fairer food system that delivers for producers and consumers, we need to break up the monopolies at each link in the food chain. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Big Tech’s European Spending SpreeA new report shows that Big Tech lobbying in Europe have reached new heights, with lobbying expenditures growing to €151 million (~$244 million CAD) in 2025. The details of this campaign are sobering. As Corporate Observatory Europe shows, tech’s astounding lobbying spend is now greater than the combined spending of finance, pharmaceuticals and automotive, industries that don’t exactly shy away from shaping the policy process. Unsurprisingly it’s Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon leading the charge. Beyond straightforward lobbying, Big Tech employs increasingly sophisticated tactics to exert influence. Using the channels of communication they control, they have distorted European discourse around regulations, painting efforts of countries to regain some semblance of control over their online spaces as forms of censorship. Big Tech has also increasingly engaged in shadow lobbying through proxies that can obscure their Big Tech connections. They have also shown a willingness to adopt the tactics of authoritarian states, stoking political extremism and division, directly undermining democratic institutions. Canada is no exception to these efforts. Big Tech and its proxies, think tanks like the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the Chamber of Progress are taking to the field to push their agenda. Regardless of the progressive varnish that some of these organizations apply, their real interest is the unfettered power of the companies that fund them. As Canada wrestles with our own dependence on these platforms, we need to be alert to the full scope of the efforts of these companies to bend the policy process to their will. As the experience of Europe and the United States shows, this desire for control extends beyond markets and over our politics and public sphere. 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 |
As Blue Jays fans stare down high-priced World Series tickets, can provinces really stop scalpers?
Investigative Journalism Foundation
Thousands of Canadians eager to watch the Blue Jays play in the World Series for the first time since 1993, who have dealt with impossibly long lines and exorbitantly high prices, are once again turning their frustrations toward a familiar target — Ticketmaster.
Letters: Grocery Gouge
October 26, 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.
Canadians Shouldn’t Be Surprised by Sticky Food InflationThis week’s inflation print from Statistics Canada brought unwelcome news. Average inflation has increased, with the rising price of food leading the pack. But this shouldn’t be a surprise to Canadians, given our lack of effort in fixing the food system that has consistently forced these price increases on Canadians. While the previous federal government took action to improve Canada’s competition law, the application of those laws to the food system has been limited. The Competition Bureau’s pursuit of property controls that limit grocery competition have borne some fruit and a code of conduct now exists between major retailers and suppliers, but the same system effectively remains in place. Canada’s grocery market is heavily concentrated, which allowed the three major players to protect and even expand their margins as prices continue to rise. The situation is worse further up the supply chain, where just two or three companies control important markets like meatpacking, seeds, and fertilizer. Stuck in the middle of these massive companies are the individual producers who are forced to bear the risk that agricultural giants insulate themselves from. But the situation is not hopeless. When the problem is structural, it requires a structural remedy. While the grocery code of conduct might increase transparency and reliability in the supply chain, it doesn’t change the distribution of power across the food system. Similarly, while political parties have floated windfalls taxes for the excess profits of grocery giants, this approach leaves the current structure intact and provides no relief to Canadians at checkout. Even redistributive responses have their limitations, with money flowing right back into a monopolized food system. At every level, the markets that put food on our tables are monopolized, with entrenched incumbents cornering the market for necessities. If we want to create a competitive food system that is resilient to the kind of shocks we’ve seen since 2020, we need to break open these concentrated markets. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Ticketmaster’s Tactics Stick Jays Fans with Sky High PricesEveryone outside of Los Angeles County is excited about the Toronto Blue Jays advancing to the World Series, giving the team another crack at a title they haven’t held since 1993. Those looking to attend any of the games, however, may find that enthusiasm shaken. To attend just one game, tickets will cost you hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for even the cheap seats. Expensive World Series tickets are not a new phenomenon, but what has emerged in recent years is the industrialized scalping that companies like Ticketmaster have allowed to foster. Why does Ticketmaster allow scalpers employing bots to instantly scoop up all available tickets and sell them right back to fans at sky high prices? Because it’s profitable. By turning a blind eye to the scalpers operating on their platform, Ticketmaster is able to “triple dip” on the fees they charge to ticket buyers and sellers. This is exactly the kind of conduct that the U.S. FTC is currently suing Ticketmaster over down south. Canada’s Competition Bureau has sued Ticketmaster over its deceptive practices in the past, but this time around they’re passing the buck to provinces. Just over a month has passed since we put Ticketmaster on blast for closing Toronto venues, dominating the live entertainment market through its ownership of Live Nation, and jacking up admissions to the Toronto International Film (TIFF). In response to the public firestorm, Ticketmaster vowed to crack down on scalpers, but a company’s commitment to not act in its own interest isn’t worth the price of admission. If we want change, we need to break up Ticketmaster’s entertainment monopoly and regulate the practices that have stuck Jays fans with five-figure World Series tickets. In the meantime, Go Birds. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Amazon Stock Shrugs Off Major Internet OutageThis week, a Domain Name System (DNS) error brought down a key node in Amazon’s cloud computing infrastructure, AWS, causing massive outages for businesses relying on AWS cloud servers. Over 60 countriesmay have been affected, with services like Amazon’s own Alexa assistant, Snapchat, and the ultra-popular videogame Roblox going down. Highlighting the bizarre reach of connected technology, smartbed ownersfound themselves locked out of their mattresses. While the issue had been remedied the next day, the scope could mean damages in the hundreds of billions, highlighting a recurring theme of this newsletter: the dangers of highly concentrated digital infrastructure. Highlighting Amazon’s dominance in the space, anti-monopoly expert Matt Stoller points out that the company’s stock remained completely unaffected by the outage. Because of Amazon’s dominant position in the market, and in the adjacent markets they monopolize, investors know they will be able to shrug off this kind of global disruption. Businesses reliant on AWS might lose revenues and valuable customers, but the level of lock-in and few alternatives mean they are unlikely to go through the pain of switching providers. With the stock prices steady, for Amazon the outage is somebody else’s problem. We can be sure that this won’t be the last catastrophic outage we hear about for Amazon or one of the other major cloud providers like Microsoft or Google. If key digital infrastructure remains consolidated under the control of a few providers with limited competitive pressure, the risk of these far-reaching service outages, from videogames to bed frames, will remain. The political ruptures of the past year have reminded us of the dangers of relying too heavily on a single country, and outages like these remind us of the dangers of doing the same with a handful of companies. 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 |
Amazon cloud outage downed sites for millions of users, exposing risks of overdependence
CBC News
A few days after Amazon’s cloud services company AWS had an outage that for millions of users plunged popular websites and apps into the dark, questions still linger about why we’re so reliant on a handful of companies in the first place — and why it might be hard to prevent another outage.