Google guilty ruling in antitrust case could boost Canada's lawsuit against tech giant
The Financial Post
Alphabet Inc.’s Google LLC last week was found guilty of illegally building and maintaining a monopoly in some online advertising markets by a judge in the United States, the second major blow to the US$1.8-trillion company that could break up its digital empire and shift the balance of power online.
Letters: Google is a Monopolist (Again)
April 20, 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.
Judge Finds Google Holds Illegal Online Ad MonopolyIn a historic decision, a U.S. federal judge ruled this week that Google broke antitrust laws in the online advertising market. Judge Brinkema determined that Google unfairly limited competition by buying up competitors and creating conflicts of interest through its control of multiple parts of the online ad system. This marks the second time Google has been declared a monopolist in the U.S., following a 2024 ruling about its search engine dominance. The next big question is what penalty Google will face. The judge might force Google to sell off major portions of its advertising technology business, including the DoubleClick platform it bought in 2008. Such changes could create more competition in online advertising, potentially helping advertisers, publishers, and consumers worldwide by lowering costs and improving services. However, if the remedies only apply to Google's U.S. operations, other countries might not see the benefits. That's why a similar case in Canada remains important. Canada's Competition Bureau is pursuing its own legal action against Google, covering the same issues in online advertising. The U.S. victory helps the Canadian case, but regulators still face challenges in our own legal system, which has gravitated towards a narrow interpretation of competition law. The case is another reminder that global authorities can take on these tech giants and win. In doing so, the U.S. has taken an important step to dismantling one of the many monopolies that make up its economy. Now it's time for Canada to ensure our own citizens see the same benefits. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
New Report Dives Into Canadian Labour Market ConcentrationMonopolies can emerge in any market, and the market for our labour is no different. When companies don’t have to compete for employees, they squeeze wages, degrade job conditions, and unfairly restrict workers. This week, economist and CAMP co-founder Robin Shaban released a new report with the CSA Group reminding us that fair competition isn’t just a consumer issue; it’s a worker issue too. Looking at labour market concentration across over 800 local job markets from 2018 to 2023, Shaban found that markets with few options for workers are not limited to small or remote communities. The data reveal significant labour monopsony (the term of art for when a single buyer rather than single seller has too much power) even in mid-sized Canadian cities. Certain sectors stand out nationwide: health care, post-secondary education, and social services all display high employer concentration. While competition law has long ignored the concerns of workers, the tide is turning. Reforms in 2024 strengthened the role of labour in Canadian merger law and just this week the U.S. DOJ secured a win against a conspiracy to fix the wages of home nurses in Nevada. These are big steps forward, aligning Canada with a growing North American effort to tackle wage-fixing, no-poach agreements, and employer concentration that keeps workers down. Shaban calls for strengthened enforcement by equipping the Competition Bureau with resources and expertise in labour economics and a greater focus on employer concentration in collective bargaining. The first of hopefully many studies of this kind, this new report shines a light on the market that ensures we get a fair day's wage for a fair day's work 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Meta's Monopoly on Trial: Zuckerberg Takes the StandOver a decade ago, Facebook (now Meta) spent billions to buy two rising rivals – Instagram and WhatsApp. Now, those same deals might be on the chopping block. In a Washington, D.C. courtroom, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is pursuing a landmark case to break up Meta. This was the first week of the trial, and it kicked off with blockbuster testimony from none other than Mark Zuckerberg himself. The FTC’s opening arguments wasted no time in framing the narrative: Facebook’s purchase of these companies wasn’t benign or pro-consumer – it was a deliberate move to “snuff out” nascent competition and maintain a social networking monopoly. Meta argues the FTC has drawn the market too narrowly, excluding platforms like TikTok, YouTube, or iMessage that Meta says compete for users’ attention. The trial comes just a week after the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Sarah Wynn-Williams, former Director of Global Public Policy at Meta. Beyond the consumer harms outlined in the antitrust trial, Williams alleged Meta executives compromised U.S. national security to expand its business in China. The two events are a reminder that monopolies are not just corrosive to our economic lives, but our sovereignty as well. To keep up with the day-to-day developments of the trial be sure to subscribe to Big Tech on Trial for coverage as the historic event unfolds. 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: Medical Middlemen
April 13, 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.
Pharmacy Middlemen Face Canadian ScrutinyCanada's Competition Bureau has initiated an investigation into Express Scripts Canada, a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) that processes prescription drug claims and operates mail-order pharmacies nationwide. This week, the Bureau announced it had secured a federal court order requiring the company to provide detailed records and testimony to explore allegations of anti-competitive practices in the healthcare space. The investigation appears to have two streams. First, the Bureau is looking into whether Express Scripts’ practice of "patient steering" through preferred provider networks (PPNs has pressured Canadians into using affiliated pharmacies rather than a pharmacy of their choice. Second, the Bureau is considering whether the corporation engaged in "margin squeezing," burdening pharmacy competitors with onerous fees. PBMs like Express Scripts play a powerful yet opaque role in healthcare, managing drug benefits for employers, insurance companies, and government programs. Their position allows them significant influence over drug pricing, pharmacy reimbursements, and patient access. Critics argue that this role creates conflicts of interest, incentivizing practices that boost profits at the expense of patient choice and affordability. Canada is not alone in diving into the pharmacy middleman industry. The inquiry mirrors ongoing actions in the U.S., where the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has targeted PBMs for allegedly inflating insulin prices by leveraging their middleman positions to disadvantage competitors and limit consumer choice. CAMP will be following the investigation closely and translating for readers as the situation develops. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Canada’s Critical Infrastructure Should Not Be For SaleAmerican private equity giant Blackstone is seeking regulatory approval for a $7-billion stake in Rogers Communications' wireless network infrastructure. This week, Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Willis called on policy makers to require CEO Stephen Schwarzman to speak out against President Trump in exchange for national security review clearance of the transaction. But what good would a few harsh words do if we no longer had domestic ownership of our critical infrastructure? Gestures like these are meaningless in a geopolitical environment where ownership and control of infrastructures, resources, and production capacity are paramount. Rather than strike deals, regulators need to strengthen our control over critical infrastructure to mitigate future vulnerabilities. Canadian infrastructure, notably telecom networks, remain vital to preserving Canada’s future as an independent nation next door to an increasingly hostile and erratic neighbour. Rather than seeking empty platitudes, Canada should have a red line against the sale of critical infrastructure to foreign buyers in today’s unpredictable geopolitical landscape. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Meta's U.S. Antitrust Trial Kicks Off MondayA historic antitrust trial against Meta, formerly Facebook, begins Monday in U.S. federal court. Brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the suit alleges that Meta systematically used illegal “buy-or-bury” tactics to suppress competition, notably through the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC argues that Meta's executives recognized their vulnerability during the critical transition to mobile technology and chose acquisition over innovation, killing competition and cementing their dominant position at the expense of consumer choice. This case is not simply about reconsidering past mergers; it represents a broader struggle over how Big Tech companies influence competition and innovation in the digital economy. Meta's control of key communications platforms has given it influence over privacy standards, freedom of expression, and the flow of information within and across countries. While CEO Mark Zuckerberg engaged in a flurry of lobbying, including direct appeals to President Trump, ahead of the suit, so far the trial is proceeding as planned. But that doesn’t mean Meta’s lobbying hasn’t been successful. The remedies the FTC seeks in the case could significantly alter the digital landscape, including potential divestments of Instagram and WhatsApp, to restore competition. At any point in the process Trump could lean on the FTC to take a lighter touch to the benefit of the platform giant. No surprise that at CAMP we’re hoping U.S. trustbusters will stand firm in spite of any political headwinds. To keep up with the day-to-day developments of the trial be sure to subscribe to Big Tech on Trial for Brendan Benedict’s coverage as the historic event unfolds. 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 |
Brief | The Monopoly Problem at the Heart of Canada’s Food System
Jennifer Clapp, Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability, University of Waterloo and Keldon Bester, Executive Director at CAMP show that while the ongoing cost-of-living crisis facing Canadians has been provoked by recent global events, the consolidation of the Canadian food system that has allowed for this run up in prices has been a long-running and strenuous process.
Read the full brief here.
Letters: You Can't Bank on It
April 6, 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.
Some Team Canada: Banks Tighten Strings on Tariff-impacted CanadiansAs Canadian companies wrap themselves in the flag amid a surge in nationalist sentiment, we’re quickly finding out just how thin those maple leaf commitments are. In the face of heightened trade tensions, Bank of Montreal (BMO) has tightened mortgage lending rules for self-employed Canadians hit by tariffs in industries like steel, aluminum, construction, and transportation. This broad-stroke policy shift could impact hundreds of thousands of workers, restricting their access to credit when they need it most amid ongoing economic uncertainty. This opportunistic pullback highlights a deeper systemic issue rooted in Canada's concentrated banking sector. Without meaningful competition among banks, affected Canadians have limited options if major institutions collectively decide to restrict access to credit. This situation is just one example of the underlying market power issue: Canada's banking oligopoly is designed to serve one kind of Canadian, sidelining individuals whose incomes fluctuate or come from industries vulnerable to external shocks. Rather than standing up for Canadians, the banks’ moves amplify economic vulnerability, leaving entrepreneurs, tradespeople, and self-employed workers disproportionately disadvantaged. It underscores the urgent need for real competition and diversity in Canada's banking system, allowing different institutions to meet the diverse and evolving financial needs of all Canadians. This moment demands action that increases competition and diversity in financial services as Canadians adjust to a new economic reality. Policy makers need to break the banking sector’s oligopolistic grip and create a financial system that serves Canadians of all backgrounds and economic situations. Building a genuinely competitive banking system is fundamental to Canada’s long-term economic independence and resilience. The Fight Against Monopoly Power Goes GlobalWhile the threat of monopoly power is a global one, the civil society response to it is just as far-reaching. Last week, CAMP came together with civil society groups from North America, Europe, South America, and beyond to coordinate responses and efforts to push back against rising monopoly power. Participants detailed the risk extreme concentrations of corporate power pose to the future of democratic economies and laid out how citizens, civil societies, and governments of all stripes can defuse that risk in the new global environment. We’ve long known that corporations like Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon wield disproportionate influence through digital infrastructures and control over vital economic and public sectors. Now that influence is increasingly put to use supporting alliances between corporate giants and authoritarian governments. Without sustained resistance, this trend will supercharge anti-democratic forces in countries around the world. The conference emphasized the necessity of coordinated global action, pushing for structural interventions including merger bans and corporate break-ups, and robust, responsive regulatory actions like the EU's Digital Markets Act. Going alone, individual countries can be picked off by the globe-spanning corporations that want to lock in their power. United, especially across political divides, countries can safeguard our sovereignty and push for policies that rein in corporate power in the pursuit of the public interest. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Zuckerberg Leans on Trump to Kill Antitrust ActionMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had a busy week in Washington, personally lobbying President Trump and senior administration officials to avoid an imminent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust trial. The FTC trial, scheduled for mid-April, seeks to challenge Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, alleging they were deliberately designed to eliminate competition and preserve Meta’s social media dominance. Zuckerberg’s White House visit—his third so far in the early months of Trump’s presidency—underscores the lengths Big Tech will go to maintain their market power. This lobbying, coupled with Meta’s $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural fund and a $25 million settlement that funneled money into Trump’s presidential library, raises serious questions about undue corporate influence on American institutions and policy making. With the FTC weakened by recent firings of Democratic commissioners under Trump’s directive, the integrity of independent regulatory oversight in the United States faces its toughest challenge to date. While the world reels from Trump’s tariffs, unchecked monopoly power continues its attempts to undermine democracy, fairness, and competition around the world. 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: CAMP is Hiring
March 30, 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.
CAMP is Hiring an Anti-Monopoly AnalystCAMP is excited to announce that we are hiring a Policy Analyst position to support our work on protecting competition and sovereignty in digital markets. This is a full-time, remote role aimed at addressing monopoly concerns in markets at the vanguard of our economy at a time when Canada’s relationship with American tech firms is rapidly changing. The successful candidate will draft influential policy reports, stay up to date on global policy developments, and advocate solutions to Canada’s pressing monopoly challenges. We seek candidates passionate about building a more democratic and resilient economy with strong analytical and communication skills, ready to engage deeply with policy issues that shape our economy. The ideal applicant has a keen interest in public policy, competition, and technology markets, combined with a drive to challenge concentrated economic power. We encourage readers to share this opportunity with your network and anyone who might be a strong fit for this impactful role. Together, we can build markets that are competitive, resilient, and serve all Canadians. For more details and to apply, check out the Policy Analyst posting on the CAMP site. Applications close April 18, 2025. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Trump Tariffs Cannot Be a Blank Cheque for Corporate CanadaAs Trump’s ever-shifting tariff threats continue to disrupt Canada’s relationship with the United States, policymakers are facing pressure from corporate lobbies for extensive subsidies to "protect" domestic industries. In his newly published book, At the Trough, industrial policy expert Laurent Carbonneau argues against repeating the mistakes of Canada’s corporate welfare past. In recent commentary for The Globe and Mail, Carbonneau emphasizes that crisis-driven subsidies in Canada have historically entrenched powerful incumbents without fostering lasting economic resilience or public benefit. Instead, large corporations frequently capitalized on public funds, enhancing their dominance without corresponding improvements in innovation or productivity. With federal subsidies ballooning to $33 billion annually by 2024, ignoring the lessons of the past risks reinforcing the ills of corporate concentration and diverting essential resources from critical public needs like housing, healthcare, and infrastructure. Instead of another round of corporate welfare, the current tariff-driven economic crisis presents an opportunity to chart a different course. Policymakers should prioritize strategic investments in genuinely beneficial public infrastructure and economic policies that decentralize economic power and broadly stimulate economic growth. As Carbonneau’s book shows, Canada’s corporate titans were at the trough well before Trump took office. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
National Champion Policies Make Meat Industry MonopoliesA groundbreaking new paper reveals how national champion policies have intensified corporate concentration in global meat supply chains, benefitting a small group of multinational corporations at significant public cost. Researchers detail how state-supported "national champions" in countries like Brazil have driven aggressive consolidation, resulting in just a few firms—like Brazil’s JBS—controlling vast portions of the global meat market. Unsurprisingly, this concentration has not translated into widespread economic benefits or food security improvements for ordinary citizens. Instead, the research highlights the negative consequences that have followed: price manipulation, reduced market resilience, and increased vulnerability to supply disruptions. Canada has not been immune to this drive towards consolidation at the expense of consumers and farmers. Over 80% of beef processing in Canada is dominated by just two companies, one of them being JBS. No matter the pitch for championing corporate giants through public policy, the real outcomes are almost always undermining competition, driving up consumer prices, and weakening economic resilience. This research underscores a key message: Bigger isn’t always better. Economic uncertainty is no excuse for stepping away from the robust approach to competition policy essential to safeguarding economic stability and public welfare in our food system. 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 |