Letters: Return on Investment
August 17, 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.
CAMP Urges Feds to Invest in the Competition BureauIt’s pre-budget season in Ottawa, and amid a major federal government spending review, departments are deciding how spending cuts will fall across the public service. Who and what is cut in the coming years will have a material impact on what the federal public service can deliver for Canadians. That’s why, in our submission to the government’s pre-budget consultation, CAMP is calling on the federal government to invest in, rather than cut, the Competition Bureau. The budget of the department in which the Bureau sits was just over $10 billion in 2024. Of that $10 billion, the Bureau accounts for less than 1% at just north of $70 million. This was money well spent, with estimates showing that the Bureau delivered $30 of savings for every $1 invested in the enforcer – over $2 billion in value every year. Those savings come from enforcement action in markets that matter to Canadians. As of today, the Bureau has ongoing investigations into anti-competitive conduct in groceries, gas, real estate, and a host of other markets. Pair these with the Bureau’s ongoing case against search giant Google and you’re talking about the future of competition in markets worth tens of billions of dollars annually. In 2023 and 2024 the government made important moves to strengthen Canada’s competition law. But these changes will be one step forward and two steps back if the government cuts the Bureau’s funding and asks the enforcer to do more with less. While flat cuts across the board offer senior administrators an easy way out of internal politics, the crucial work of the Competition Bureau merits more, not less resources. Its time to double down on protecting Canadians and invest in an empowered Competition Bureau. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Big Cloud’s Push to Own the FutureCloud computing has become the underlying infrastructure for much of our digital lives. Cloud servers store our information and run the digital products we use, with businesses and governments alike dependent on their services. Cloud computing centralizes control over our information- rather than storing things locally, they’re kept on massive remote data centres. It’s a way of computing that is incredibly expensive to set up and maintain and only works well at scale. Those economies of scale come with serious worries about the consolidation of economic power in and beyond the cloud market. Two thirds of the global cloud market is dominated by just three companies – Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. But new research out this month from Nathan Kim and David Gray shows that these companies, referred to as Big Cloud, are seeking to dominate not just the market for cloud computing, but adjacent technology markets as well. Investing in innovation isn’t bad, but Big Cloud’s strategy is about control. These firms use investment into companies and startup accelerators to ensure that new technologies are dependent on Big Cloud as both investors and service providers, shutting out competitors who don’t have a side business as major venture capital firms. The research is a reminder that we need to take a wider view when we think about control in markets or an economy. A narrow antitrust analysis would care only about dominance or investments in the market for cloud computing, but it’s clear that this dominance is being put to work in a broader ecosystem, not just a single market. If countries don’t move decisively to blunt this accumulation of economic power, Big Cloud will be setting the rules in markets far beyond cloud computing. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Meta’s Reckless Handling of Children and ChatbotsWould you trust the makers of Facebook to babysit your kids? In the past two decades we’ve ceded more control of our lives to tech companies – how we get around, how we access information, and how we connect with one another. Unfortunately, this process seems poised to intensify with the integration of large language models and chatbots into the services we use every day. This is bad enough for adults, but the situation becomes even more fraught when kids get in the mix. As more young people engage with AI chatbots, they can enter unpredictable and unsupervised situations facilitated by corporations totally unaccountable for their consequences. This week, Reuters revealed internal Meta documents that show how while employees play whack-a-mole to prohibit egregious and dangerous prompts, young users can easily find their way into racist, violent and sexual conversations. This is not Meta’s first foray into social experimentation at scale. They’ve used their algorithms to spread “emotional contagions” that made users sadder, amplified divisive content, and conditioned users to seek dopamine hits through their platforms. When we refuse to regulate these platforms, we give up control of aspects of our lives, whether economic, social, or political. This task is frustrated by the power these companies have been able to accumulate, not just in their millions of lobbying dollars but also their ownership of key channels of communication. Meta puts up a good show when it reacts to publicity crises like these, but they can never treat the true cause: their business model. To change course requires two tall orders. We must break up the power that allows these companies to act with impunity and regulate the business models that makes putting dangerous chatbots in the hands of children profitable. 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 |
Submission | Pre-Budget Consultation in Advance of the 2025 Federal Budget
In its 2025 Pre-Budget Submission, the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP) calls on the federal government to invest in the future of competition in Canada. With affordability still top of mind for Canadians, the 2025 budget is an opportunity to build up rather than cut back the efforts of the Competition Bureau to promote competition and improve the cost of living.
Recognizing the 30-to-1 return on funding dollars invested in the Competition Bureau, the federal government should commit to increasing the Bureau's annual funding by $25 million in the upcoming budget. Strong reforms of the Competition Act in 2023 and 2024 must be matched with appropriate resources to make the most of these important policy changes. Laws are only as good as their enforcement, and a well-resourced Competition Bureau is key to protecting competition and improving affordability for Canadians.
Read the full submission here.
Google search AI summaries hurt news sites’ traffic, publishers say
The Globe & Mail
News publishers say the AI-generated summaries that now top many Google search results are cutting into their online traffic — and experts are still flagging concerns about the summaries’ accuracy as they warn the internet itself is being reshaped.
Letters: Telecom Tussle
August 10, 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.
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 📰
Evidence Mounts on Collusive Potential of Algo PricingLast 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 📚
Uber Puts Exploiting Labour Above Rider SafetyOver 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 |
Competition Bureau drops inquiry into U.S. company’s acquisition of Jasper SkyTram
Rocky Mountain Outlook
Pursuit now owns six of Jasper and Banff’s major sightseeing attractions, which also include the Banff Gondola, the Columbia Icefield Adventure, the Columbia Icefield Skywalk, Banff’s Lake Minnewanka Cruise and Jasper’s Maligne Lake Cruise.
Two new rideshare companies try to compete with Uber and Lyft in Toronto
The Globe & Mail
Two new rideshare companies – one Canadian and one European – have entered the Toronto market in an attempt to compete with ride-hailing behemoths Uber and Lyft decrease and capitalize on the wave of domestic patriotism that is driving Canadian consumers away from American brands in light of the trade war.