August 10, 2025

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:

• Cabinet decides in favour of infrastructure sharing in regulatory fight between Bell and Telus
• More evidence that algorithmic pricing models have the potential to coordinate at the expense of consumers
• Uber’s neglect of rider safety shows the cost of a business model based on rule breaking

If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP

Now let’s dive in.

What’s a Little Infrastructure Sharing Among Friends?

After another round of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC’s) wholesale access saga, the federal cabinet has ruled that Canada’s major telecom incumbents will be able to use the infrastructure of their equally sized rivals going forward.

Here's what that might mean for you: consumers in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and the East Coast will continue to see Telus offering home internet services using Rogers’ and Bell’s lines bundled with mobile and other services. Shoppers in the western provinces may soon see Bell do the same in Telus’ home territory. Rogers is the odd man out because the rules mean that telecoms can’t use the infrastructure of competitors where they already have their own.

More competition sounds good. But the question remains what companies actually need regulated access to compete. The real losers of this decision are likely the independent ISPs that have long offered distinct services. Without the ability to offer mobile services, they will struggle to compete for customers. Consumers may see better bundles, but with fewer competitors prices and offerings often converge.

The key issue is now the final wholesale rates set by the CRTC. These rates are what access-seekers pay the network owner to reach households in the region. If the rates are low, independents can compete profitability. If the rates are high, independents will take another hit.

Current rates have driven many independents out of the market, often via acquisition by incumbent. If the CRTC finally sets fair rates, this week's decision could be seen as a clear win for Canadians. But so long as the system undervalues independents, Canada will continue moving toward oligopoly.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• Subramaniam, Two new rideshare companies try to compete with Uber and Lyft in Toronto (Globe and Mail)
• Shokeir, Competition Bureau drops inquiry into U.S. company’s acquisition of Jasper SkyTram, (Rocky Mountain Outlook)

Evidence Mounts on Collusive Potential of Algo Pricing

Last week, we shared with you CAMP’s response to the Competition Bureau’s call for information on the topic of algorithmic pricing and its potential to facilitate collusion at the expense of consumers. Our message was clear: as landlords, retailers and other firms adopt automated pricing tools, regulation should prevent them from fixing prices by proxy, coordinating through reinforcement learning, or engaging in tacit collusion.

Turns out we had pretty good timing. A recent NBER study found that in simulations, algorithms often settle on collusive strategies that generate higher profits than competition would. This shows the need to understand how these tools are used, what their possible outcomes are, and act accordingly. If the stated goal is to increase margins, there is a risk of killing competition that benefits consumers. This matters in the grocery aisle and the rental market as Canadians are squeezed to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Changes in how competition occurs require change in the laws that protect it. A study finding that collusion can occur without agreement, communication, or intent presents a challenge for competition law. Law written with smoky backrooms in mind must be updated to protect competition in a world where competitors could be colluding without realizing it. The Competition Bureau should be able to audit pricing algorithms for collusive potential and provinces should move to ban the use of the tools in markets where Canadians are particularly vulnerable. Canadians have put up with enough old-fashioned cartels. They should not have to face a new wave of them.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Michaels and Linskey, MAGA antitrust agenda under siege by lobbyists close to Trump (WSJ)
• Dorn, Big Tech is the only winner of the Online Safety Act (New Statesman)
• Ding, tokens are getting more expensive (mandates)

Uber Puts Exploiting Labour Above Rider Safety

Over a decade ago, Uber came on the scene with a new kind of strategy. Rather than follow market norms, it would instead disrupt them, aggressively subverting regulations and displacing older models. After years of undercutting competition and running up losses, Uber is comfortably on top of the rideshare market, and began to turn a profit for the first time in 2023. Like Google, Uber’s dominance is clear now that its name has become a verb for hiring a driver.

But when competition relies on skirting the law, as in Uber’s refusal to treat drivers as employees, it can have serious side effects. As the New York Times shows this week, in dealing with the problem of sexual assault on its platform, Uber decided not to pursue actions that would have kept riders safe. The reason? Doing so would have made it harder for the company to argue that drivers were contractors instead of employees. In-car cameras reduced assaults, but each new driver requirement weaken’s Uber contractor argument.

CAMP supports competition, but not when it erodes labour and safety standards. Not every law is beneficial, but companies cannot pick and choose which laws they feel like following. There are fair and unfair ways to compete. When lawbreaking becomes the norm, law-abiding companies are punished. Uber broke a monopoly that constrained ride hailing, but the cost of extending its break-the-rules approach to other areas of law are now in clear view.

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​

​

August 3, 2025

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 responds to the Competition Bureau’s study of algorithmic pricing
• CAMP fellow Andrew Paulley lays out the importance of local competition amid tariff turmoil
• Pay to play corruption in the Trump administration derails economic populist hopes

If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP

Now let’s dive in.

Protecting Canadians from Algorithmic Collusion

Algorithms and data now drive critical business decisions, including pricing. When used to improve business performance, this is a positive development. But algorithmic pricing also has the potential to enable collusion, reducing competition and raising prices for consumers. As these tools spread to grocery stores, gas stations, and rental companies, Canada’s law must keep up.

Many are familiar with the image of a smoky backroom where cartel participants meet to set prices at the expense of consumers. But algorithmic collusion digitizes this process, even without the knowledge of its users. Algorithmic collusion occurs when algorithms coordinate pricing between competitors without explicit agreement, often using sensitive competitor data that would be otherwise unavailable to a business.

To ensure that Canadians are protected from all forms of collusion, this week CAMP provided a submission to the Competition Bureau’s call for information on algorithmic pricing. The submission recommends two actions: the Bureau continue and expand investigations into algorithmic collusion in markets like gas and housing, and governments should update our laws to protect Canadians from algorithmic collusion and unfair price discrimination.

Canadians deserve fair competition in all markets, but the issue is particularly urgent in areas where consumers already face limited choice. Following U.S. examples, Canadian provinces should ban the use of algorithmic pricing in key markets such as rental housing. Amid an all-hands-on-deck effort to reduce the cost of living for Canadians, from the pump to the rental market, tackling algorithmic collusion should be a priority for policymakers at all levels.

Even in a Tariff World, Local Markets Matter

On the other side of Trump’s August 1st deadline, Canada finds itself in good company with countries around the world stuck with record-setting tariffs. Despite trade agreement protections, Canada still faces a serious economic shock. After COVID supply chain shocks and ongoing tariff drama, Canadians know more about global supply chains than they would like. But even in a world with headlines dominated by tariffs, the lives of Canadians are still shaped by the local markets around us and the options they offer.

This week, CAMP fellow Andrew Paulley explains why amid tariffs, local competition remains important as ever. As Paulley shows, local competition is still a deciding factor in the markets for groceries, financial services, and housing.

Most people, urban or rural, won’t travel more than four kilometers to save on groceries. Banks build more branches than would otherwise be efficient because they know a local branch remains important to consumers, especially when they decide to switch banks. When moving, people often stay in their own neighbourhood, narrowing the scope of the relevant market.

While more of our commercial lives moves online, the markets in our immediate vicinity continue to play an important role. Though global issues dominate headlines, Canadians still deserve competition in their own backyard.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Khan, A Secret to Zohran Mamdani's Success (New York Times)
• Devadiga, Google Keeps Making Smartphones Worse (Jacobin)
• Melendez, Consumer Credit- CHLA praises FHFA move to allow competing credit scores (Vital Law)

Make America Grift Again

In the early, early days of the Trump administration, we at CAMP held out some optimism that the President’s populist streak would extend to his government's approach to antitrust and American monopolies. The MAGA coalition included anti-Big Tech voices, and hires like Gail Slater at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Mark Meador at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) talked a good game on enforcement.

This week that optimism ran headfirst into the brick wall reality of the boozy backroom deals and pay-to-play corruption that are hallmarks of the second Trump administration. For UnHerd, Sohrab Ahmari details how Trump officials strongarmed Slater into accepting a bogus settlement in the $14 billion HPE-Juniper acquisition and fired two of her senior attorneys for pushing back.

Here the term boozy backroom is literal, as Ahmari’s reporting shows that the settlement that Slater pushed back on was cooked up over drinks at a swanky D.C. The HPE-Juniper merger is not a done deal just yet. Corruption during the Nixon era led to the Tunney Act, a process that allows a judge to examine antitrust settlements for improper influence. Normally a formality, the near-parody level outcome of a few drinks between friends makes intervention more likely.

Whatever the outcome of the Tunney Act review, it’s unlikely this event will be an outlier. Despite early hope that Trump 2 would continue the antitrust push under Biden and even Trump 1, these tactics suggest outright corruption is the norm. While several important antitrust cases, especially those against Big Tech, continue in the U.S., the HPE-Juniper saga suggests the era of the U.S. federal government as an antitrust leader may be ending.

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​

​