Letters: Transatlantic Anti-Monopoly
June 1, 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 installment we have:
Now let’s dive in.
Platforms vs Democracy: CAMP Weighs In on Europe’s Democracy ShieldThe C in CAMP is there for a reason. Canada has its own monopoly problems and cannot depend on others to solve them. But many of these problems are shared by countries around the world, especially when it comes to the global power of Big Tech. This week, CAMP submitted comments to the European Commission’s (EC) consultation on its European Democracy Shield initiative. The initiative is a welcome effort to bolster democratic resilience in the face of unprecedented geopolitical instability and global concentrations of economic and political power. In its submission, CAMP calls for bold, structural reforms to rein in the monopoly platforms that shape our information and democratic discourse. It emphasizes that incremental tweaks won’t suffice – what’s needed are strong antitrust measures (up to and including break-ups of dominant firms) and new forms of democratic oversight of tech giants. The submission also stresses the need for greater cooperation and collaboration between dependable allies amid rising threats to the sovereignty of individual nations. CAMP praises Europe’s recent steps, from aggressive enforcement to landmark laws like the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, and urges EU officials to maintain their leadership in challenging Big Tech power. Only by dismantling Big Tech’s dominance and establishing robust public oversight can we rebuild an online infrastructure that serves rather than undermines democracy. CAMP’s message to Brussels is the same as our message to Ottawa: we must curb platform monopolies to safeguard both our economy and our democracy. Loophole Allows Corporate Chains to Own Ontario PharmaciesWho owns your local pharmacy? In Ontario, chances are it’s part of a corporate chain despite provincial rules meant to keep pharmacies in the hands of licensed pharmacists. The Globe and Mail reports that to open a pharmacy in Ontario, you either must be a pharmacist, or have about $2 million on hand to exploit a loophole. The loophole dates back to 1954, when Ontario passed a law requiring pharmacies to be majority-owned by pharmacists. However, any corporation already operating a pharmacy on May 14, 1954 was grandfathered in under the law. This exemption created a small club of legacy pharmacy companies and, unintentionally, a gray market for their licenses. Today, investors can buy one of these pre-1954 pharmacy charters, at prices now north of $2 million, to acquire the legal authority to own pharmacies without being pharmacists. Critics, which include many pharmacists, are calling for reforms to close this loophole. The current situation, they argue, defeats the spirit of the law and puts business interests ahead of patients. Keeping the loophole open means allowing Ontario’s pharmacy market to further consolidate in corporate hands. To maintain trust in pharmacy services, Ontario must finally shut the door on this 71-year-old loophole. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Irish Privacy Watchdog Takes Aim at Microsoft’s Ad MachineIn a first-of-its-kind move for Ireland, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) is applying to the High Court to launch a class action lawsuit against Microsoft’s online advertising business. The case targets Microsoft’s use of “Real-Time Bidding” (RTB), the behind-the-scenes auction system that matches ads to individuals by broadcasting their personal data to countless advertisers. ICCL alleges this system amounts to a massive, ongoing data breach, violating EU data protection law. Longtime privacy and anti-monopoly crusader Dr. Johnny Ryan, who leads ICCL’s Enforce project, explains that very sensitive personal data, individuals’ relationships, health, finances, even whether someone works in a national security role, are routinely broadcast into what he calls a “black hole” of ad targeting. Ryan likens the system to an ongoing “huge data breach” exposing millions of people’s private details. ICCL’s challenge spotlights the wider risks of data monopolies and surveillance-driven advertising. A handful of tech firms have unparalleled access to personal data and influence over what information people see. This concentration of data creates barriers to competition while eroding consumer privacy and democratic values. CAMP applauds ICCL’s landmark effort to put a stop to this practice. 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 |
CAMP Submission to the European Commission's European Democracy Shield Consultation
May 28, 2025 - This week, CAMP provided a submission to the European Commission's open consultation on its European Democracy Shield (EDS) initiative. The European Democracy Shield is an initiative aimed at safeguarding and strengthening democratic systems across the European Union. Responding to the issues of foreign interference, disinformation, and threats to the rule of law, the EDS is an effort to protect and improve the health of democracies and the institutions they depend on.
Canada faces the same challenges as our European partners, many of them rooted in the global monopoly problem that CAMP and other partner organizations are dedicated to addressing. Reflecting the global nature of this issue, Canada, Europe, and other likeminded democracies must work together to successfully address these challenges to the health of our democracies.
In it's submission, CAMP highlighted three major themes:
- The need for Europe to continue leading the pushback against global Big Tech power, including through strict antitrust enforcement, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the Digital Services Act (DSA)
- The need for a united front against threats to the sovereignty of countries like Canada and European member states
- The opportunity for greater coordination and collaboration between Canada and the European community on efforts to regulate dominant tech firms
You can check out the full submission here.
Letters: Fowl Play
May 25, 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 installment we have:
Now let’s dive in.
Sofina Foods Tries to Build a Turkey TitanSofina Foods Inc. recently announced its proposed acquisition of Quebec-based Exceldor Cooperative, a move that would further consolidate and reduce choice in Canada’s poultry sector. Exceldor, a cooperative consisting of roughly 330 turkey and chicken producers employing approximately 3,700, has long provided farmers bargaining power against industry giants. Canada’s poultry market is already dominated by a small number of companies (including Maple Leaf Foods, Sofina, Olymel’s, among others). Though public information is limited, sources indicate that the transaction could put half of Canada’s turkey market in the hands of a single producer. Amid an ongoing cost of living crisis, the last thing Canadians need is more concentration in the food system. Regulatory scrutiny from the Competition Bureau will be pivotal, especially given CAMP’s findings that the Bureau typically reaches negotiated settlements rather than blocking mergers in Canada’s food system. Though Canada’s laws have changed, the previous narratives around efficiency and economies of scale still loom large in the sector. Given its focus on the retail grocery space, the Bureau must conduct a full review of the transaction and go public with its findings. While CAMP stays vigilant, we depend on information provided to us by readers and supporters to stay up to date on transactions like these that can easily slip under the radar. As always if you hear any monopoly rumblings don’t hesitate to drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Big Corps Drop CSR Charade on Environmental ClaimsLast summer, as part of its reform of competition law, Ottawa strengthened Canada’s approach to greenwashing, that is, false claims about environmental impact or commitments. Now businesses making public environmental or sustainability claims must have evidence – verifiable data or proper testing – to back them up. In practice, these changes simply update truth-in-advertising rules for the climate age: if you boast “100% green” or “carbon neutral,” you need a paper trail to prove it. Hardly radical demands, but as UOttawa law professor Jennifer Quaid and greenwashing expert Julien O. Beaulieu lay out in a recent piece, the corporate community is losing it. Lobbyists like the Pathways Alliance scrubbed websites of climate goals, citing “significant uncertainty” and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has demanded repeal of the truth-in-advertising amendments. Canada’s Big Banks have joined the chorus: Royal Bank of Canada quietly abandoned its $500 billion sustainable financing pledge and stopped disclosing some emissions data, attributing the change to the new rules. In short, companies that were happy to ride the green wave when all you had to do was take their word for it are now throwing in the towel when asked to show their work. In reality, these anti-greenwashing measures are minimal. They neither ban environmental initiatives nor advertising – they just prohibit unsupported claims. As usual, Canada took the middle path, with jurisdictions like the E.U. taking a much harder line on these claims. Before these reforms, greenwashing was rampant: false climate pledges duped consumers and sidelined legitimate clean-tech competitors. If corporations mean what they say when it comes to environmental commitments, requiring “adequate and proper substantiation” should be the bare minimum. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
FTC Abandons Antitrust Case Against PepsiCoIn a disappointing decision, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has dropped its lawsuit accusing PepsiCo of unfair pricing practices benefiting Walmart to the detriment of smaller retailers. Filed under the leadership of former FTC Chair Lina Khan, the case targeted PepsiCo’s alleged use of secret discounts and promotional deals to give Walmart a substantial advantage over competitors, harming competition and raising prices. To excuse their retreat, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador have taken to calling the case politically motivated, resulting in immediate criticism from antitrust advocates. Khan herself condemned the decision, arguing it effectively allows powerful retailers and suppliers unchecked freedom to use their market dominance to manipulate pricing and undermine smaller competitors. Antitrust expert Sandeep Vaheesan at the Open Markets Institute noted that if there were deficiencies in the case they could have been addressed in an amended complaint rather allowing retail giants PepsiCo and Walmart to escape scrutiny. The decision is a sign that the Trump FTC’s enthusiasm for economic populism only goes so far. The FTC had alleged PepsiCo’s conduct had raised consumer grocery bills and squeezed local grocers, but now we’re left to speculate about unseen deals that might still be tilting the playing field towards monopoly. Abandoning the case is another unfortunate sign that while the Trump FTC likes to talk tough on corporate power they aren’t willing to take the field. 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 |
Critics say continuation funds risk Ponzi dynamics
Investment Officer
Continuation funds, once a post-crisis workaround for expiring vehicles in weak exit markets, are booming and find themselves at the centre of growing criticism. Critics warn they distort valuations, mask losses, and edge dangerously close to Ponzi-like dynamics.
Critics, such as Rachel Wasserman, CAMP fellow and a Canadian corporate lawyer at Wasserman Business Law, warn that continuation vehicles are “getting uncomfortably close” to Ponzi territory. “The returns are built on recycled capital, not real performance,” she told Investment Officer.
Letters: Delay Delay Delay
May 18, 2024Welcome 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 installment we have:
Now let’s dive in.
Justice Delayed is Monopoly SustainedCanadian businesses, advertisers, and publishers received disappointing news last week as the Competition Tribunal announced that the Google ad-tech monopoly case would not get a hearing until early 2027. This timeline, with hearings beginning more than six years after the beginning of the investigation, delays access to justice and relief for affected Canadian businesses. As previously covered in this newsletter, Google’s dominance in online advertising extracts significant monopoly rents, inflating costs for advertisers and reducing revenue for publishers. While the U.S. DOJ has secured wins in both their Google search and ad tech cases, it is unlikely Canadians will see relief unless we bring our own corresponding cases. In the meantime, Google’s gatekeeper position will continue to pull in an outsized portion of the $16 billion Canadian online advertising market. The one exception would be in the case of the DOJ securing a global break up of Google’s businesses, separating out the parts of the business that support the search giant’s monopoly stranglehold. But it’s not just antitrust enforcers who are calling for a break up of Google. Financial analysts are increasingly seeing a breakup as beneficial, suggesting that shareholders might see greater returns if they were able to invest in the individual pieces of the search giant’s corporate empire. The analysis is a reminder that break ups are not simply a punishment for bad behaviour, but an important tool to unlock productive competitive forces in a monopolized market. The delays in the Canadian Google trial are a reminder of the need for rapid access to justice and the limitations of an approach that relies solely on courts to restore competition in markets. While the Competition Bureau must continue its important work, policy makers must consider the other avenues available to restore fair competition in markets across the economy. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Cloud Computing's Looming Monopoly RiskThis week the Open Markets Institute released a sobering new report highlighting critical concerns about monopoly control in cloud computing—the infrastructure that increasingly supports the modern economy. With just three American firms (Amazon, Microsoft, and Google) controlling two-thirds of global cloud infrastructure, these companies possess immense and growing power over the economic and national security concerns of countries around the world. The report urges a fundamental rethinking of regulatory approaches, emphasizing active measures to reverse current consolidation. It calls for breaking down barriers to competition through interoperability mandates, greater transparency requirements, and a clear policy recognizing cloud services as essential public utilities rather than purely private commercial products. This is not an esoteric technical issue; cloud computing power translates directly into political and economic leverage in an increasingly unstable global environment. In the coming years we can expect to see access to cloud services and the security of the data that flows through these services become flashpoints in negotiations between the U.S. and countries around the world. To mitigate our exposure to these risks, Canadian policy makers should heed the warnings of this report and work to ensure tomorrow’s digital infrastructure is open, competitive, and secure. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
What Musk’s Meddling Reveals About the Dangers of AIElon Musk’s recent debacle with xAI’s chatbot Grok illustrates an alarming risk of monopolistic control over information through artificial intelligence. This week, Ars Technica reported that Grok repeatedly generated unprompted responses about “white genocide” in South Africa which the AI itself later revealed had been instructed to regurgitate by a “rogue employee.” While the extent of ineptitude is amusing, the blunder is a cautionary tale about the dangers inherent in AI models taking on the role of sources of truth for a growing body of internet users. The image of AI systems as neutral purveyors of truth was never accurate. Instead, their output can covertly (or in this case, bizarrely overtly) reflect their owners’ biases and incentives, magnified by the algorithms that shape public discourse on a massive scale. This issue extends beyond Musk. As AI technologies become central to information consumption, their black box nature threatens our shared reality, public trust, and the health of our democracy. While Canada’s last attempt to regulate AI models failed to make it over the finish line, policy makers are not off the hook to establish clear standards and regulations for AI governance. We should be grateful for the Grok incident as a Sputnik moment for AI regulation. Left unchecked, control over AI platforms will hand even more power to shape what we understand as true to the monopolists who sit atop these black boxes. 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 |
Letting Private Equity Buy Law Firms May Stifle Service, Mobility
CAMP fellow Rachel Wasserman of Wasserman Business Law says law firms should decentralize, not consolidate, to provide good service and keep lower overhead.
Private equity firms are quietly buying up and consolidating dental, accounting, medical, and veterinary practices, turning smaller independent firms into corporate chains.
Read the article here.