Letters: Cheering on Competition
August 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:
Let's dive in.
Canadians Should Celebrate U.S. Victory Against GoogleThe landmark U.S. court ruling against Google's search monopoly is a victory for markets around the world, and one Canadians should wholeheartedly embrace. As CAMP Executive Director Keldon Bester argued in the Toronto Star this week, this decision paves the way for a more vibrant digital landscape on both sides of the border. Responding to critics who wrongly claim the ruling will stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, the piece highlights that the decision defends the fair competition that allows for challengers to emerge and fuels the innovative process. But Canada cannot solely rest on the actions of our peers, and the decision is an opportunity for Canada to build on our own burgeoning antitrust moment. Canada’s Competition Bureau has already expanded its investigation of Google’s ad tech practices as a result of action in the U.S. and should extend that vigilance to the markets for search at the heart of the recent ruling. This is critical as the U.S. Google search case moves to the remedy phase, where the presiding judge will determine the appropriate response to Google’s monopolistic conduct. While a bold set of remedies will have global consequences, it cannot be taken as given that the remedy will apply to Canadian markets. Accordingly, Canada must stand ready to take equally bold action to ensure the future of our markets are not beholden to a single gatekeeper. The ruling is a reminder both of the progress of the global antitrust movement and the hard work remaining at home and abroad. Canada must chart a bolder course in digital markets, one that prioritizes innovation, dynamism, and the contest of markets that underpins a healthy economy. CRTC Moves on Fibre Access, But Questions RemainIn welcome news for the future of internet competition, this week the CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, released its new framework for wholesale high-speed internet access. At its core, the ruling mandates that major telcos like Bell and Telus must provide competitors access to their fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks nationwide, expanding on the temporary mandate in Ontario and Quebec. This broader access could potentially inject a much-needed dose of competition into the high-speed internet market, allowing wholesale competitors to offer comparable services they had sorely lacked in recent years. But the devil is in the regulatory details. While existing fibre assets are included, a five-year "head start" exemption for new fibre builds risks leaving some Canadian internet users in the slow lane for home internet competition. The limited fibre footprint of cable companies like Rogers and Videotron are exempted from the requirement to offer wholesale access, but the same companies will be able to make use of the system to compete outside their home territory. But most critically, the rates at which this wholesale access will be available to competitors remains to be determined. These yet-to-be-set rates will ultimately make or break the effectiveness of this new framework. If set too high, they'll stifle competition before it can take root. But if calibrated appropriately, they could usher in a new era of innovative internet offerings for Canadians. While CAMP welcomes this step towards increased competition, the CRTC must follow through with truly pro-competitive rate-setting to make the effort worthwhile. After years of waiting, Canadians deserve nothing less than a genuinely open and dynamic internet market. CAMP on Campus: Competition, Mergers and Media at the University of CalgaryOne of the most important policy discussions of our time is how to foster a vibrant news media ecosystem able to undergird a healthy democracy. Even before the rise of the digital giants, Canadian media markets have been on a decades-long decline characterized by consolidation, vertical integration and the shuttering of local news outlets. To move this important discussion forward, this week CAMP Executive Director Keldon Bester will be joining columnist David Moscrop and founder of The Line Jen Gerson for Competition and Culture: Discussions on the Economics of News Media and Mergers in Canada at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. The event promises to be a wide-ranging discussion covering the topics such as the history of consolidation and vertical integration in Canadian media markets, the need for action against the giants that make up the foundation of the news business today, and the progress and pitfalls of policy action taken to date in Canada. While there will be diverging views on the correct path forward, continuing the status quo is not likely to be one of them. We encourage Calgarian CAMPers to turn up and add their voice to the discussion. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca |
Why Canadians should celebrate Google antitrust decision
Opinion by Keldon Bester, Executive Director at CAMP.
The U.S. District Court’s historic decision finding that Google had abused its monopoly position has been misportrayed by some as an attack by the government on the free market. Far from it.
Read the full article here.
Letters: Google is a Monopolist
August 11, 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:
Let's dive in.
U.S. DOJ Scores Historic Win in Google Search CaseJudge Amit Mehta's ruling that Google illegally monopolized the search market sent shockwaves through the tech world this week. One of the most durable monopolies of the digital age, the decision is the first step in opening up competition in how individuals access information online and the markets tied to that process. But the next steps in the case will be just as important to the future of competition as the decision itself. The decision validates what domestic and international antimonopoly advocates have long argued - that Google is a monopoly and practices like its multi-billion dollar default agreements with the likes of Apple have effectively crushed competition. The decision shows how far competition law has come at home and abroad. The decision is a far cry from the Canadian Competition Bureau's 2016 shrug that these same practices were harmless and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s 2013 decision to abandon its investigation into the search giant, with the intervening decade showing the true durability of Google’s monopoly. But we can’t celebrate just yet. The real test comes in the remedy phase, where Judge Mehta will decide the appropriate solution to the tangled monopoly that Google has been able to weave together. On the table is everything from search choice screens that have generated mixed results in jurisdictions like the E.U. or a dramatic break up of Google’s empire, with crown jewels like its Android operating system and Chrome browser on the table. With appeals likely and a separate DOJ case on Google's ad tech dominance heading to trial on September 9th, whatever the outcome of this case the giant’s woes are far from over. Canada has a role to play here too. With an expanded investigation into Google’s practices in the online advertising market by the Competition Bureau ongoing, CAMP will be pushing for action that ensures Americans aren’t the only ones who benefit from more competitive digital markets. So Close and Yet: Interoperability Not Enough to Fix Social Media MarketsThis week, Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne argued for mandated interoperability as a solution to many issues stemming from the power of social media platforms. While Coyne's recognition of the issues and need for intervention is welcome, it falls short of addressing the root causes of platform dominance. The promise of interoperability, whether in social media, telecommunications, or banking, is that it reduces the friction of customers switching from one service to another, allowing competition to flourish. Interoperability has been a boon to competition in markets like telecommunication, where policy makers forced phone number portability on incumbent telecom companies. But interoperability requires competing destinations for the business of users. By allowing the monopolization of digital markets, policy makers have highlighted one of the limits of interoperability as a check on corporate power. Coyne recognizes the need for regulation but can’t call for it explicitly. His hesitation reflects a broader reluctance to confront the entrenched power of tech giants head-on. While a call for interoperability is in the right spirit, it's ultimately meaningless without heeding the lessons of history in regulating other important sectors. Paired with antitrust action like the Google search case, what is needed is a comprehensive approach that takes cues from the regulatory frameworks applied to other communication and transportation technologies. Just as we've imposed non-discrimination and must-carry provisions on railway, telegraph, telephone, and internet service providers, similar principles should be applied to the dominant methods of communication and accessing information online. Measures like these would ensure fair access and prevent platforms from arbitrarily blocking or limiting the reach of certain content providers, something Canadians are all too familiar with. It is a welcome development that Canada’s policy conversation is coming to grips with the real power held by these companies, but we need to be bold if we hope to restore balance to our digital public squares. Air Canada's Rail Ambitions Raise EyebrowsAs Canada moves to invest in high frequency rail, some familiar monopoly faces are emerging. Air Canada has joined the Cadence consortium bidding for VIA Rail's High Frequency Rail project, a move that's generating significant concern among transportation advocates. Air Canada and SNCF Voyageurs were late additions to the consortium, which is one of three groups vying for the multi-billion dollar project to build a passenger-only route between Toronto and Quebec City. This development has raised several red flags in the transportation sector. Paul Langan, a rail historian quoted by Trains.com, suggests the airline may have ulterior motives: "I think they're in it to try and control it. They'll get all this VIA [Rail Canada] traffic and passenger data. Certainly, a faster and more efficient rail speed would hurt them." CAMP calls on regulators to scrutinize Air Canada’s bid carefully. The High Frequency Rail project is too important for Canada's transportation future to risk its potential derailment from the usual suspects in Canada’s monopolized transportation system. As we push for improved rail infrastructure as an alternative to knit our country together, we must ensure that the process remains fair, transparent, and truly in the public interest. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca |
Tech giants say they’re a boon to AI development, not a threat to competition
The Logic
The billions of dollars flowing through the field of artificial intelligence are helping advance the field, not cement the advantages of today’s technology giants, those firms are arguing to Canadian regulators.
CAMP Celebrates Historic U.S. DOJ Win in Google Search Case
August 5, 2024 - Today, Judge Amit Mehta sided with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its challenge of Google's monopoly in online search. Judge Mehta found that Google holds a monopoly in both the general search services and general search text ads market, and that the multi-billion dollar default agreements Google struck with companies like Apple have harmed competition.
Showing how far the global antitrust conversation has come in recent years, the decision stands in stark contrast to the 2016 finding of Canada's Competition Bureau that those same agreements "ha[d] not resulted in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition." While appeals of the decision are still possible and the remedy has yet to be determined, the win is the first step to restoring competition in a critical market.
"This win is a historic moment in the global work of reining in monopoly power," said CAMP Executive Director Keldon Bester. "The U.S. is showing us how assertive antitrust enforcement can be an effective tool for protecting the consumers and innovators that depend on well-functioning markets. Canada has taken an important step in strengthening our own antitrust law and now it is incumbent on us to vigorously enforce it."
Letters: Big Tech Pushback
August 4, 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:
Let's dive in.
Getting to the Heart of Big Tech PowerOn several policy files, Canada is at the forefront of the pushback against dominant tech giants. Across news policy, online harms and taxation, Canada has stepped on the toes of dominant tech firms and felt the heat. C-18 has generated reprisals from Meta and Google, contradicting their longstanding commitment to an open internet, and this week Google added a new "DST fee" to advertising transactions after the introduction of the Digital Services Tax, mirroring tactics in other countries to undermine fair taxation of digital services. Pushback is expected and should not dissuade Canada’s efforts to maintain sovereignty against digital giants. But a weakness that runs through Canada’s digital policy measures is that they aim to sand down the edges rather than address the power of digital giants. In the Toronto Star this week, reporter Justin Ling notes that Canada’s policy efforts will keep falling short if it doesn’t challenge the power that allows these companies to distort markets around them. The U.S. and E.U. have used competition laws and new legislation to break the hold these companies have on digital markets and create fair competition Ling put the question of why Canada hasn’t followed a similar path to Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, and she claimed that a divisive political environment was preventing the government from going further. Policies like C-11 and C-18 have made headlines, but the role of Canada’s new competition laws in preventing dominant corporations from abusing their power is underappreciated. In contrast to St-Onge’s comments about division on Canada’s big tech policy, competition law reform received unanimous support from federal MPs. Competition policy isn’t a swiss army knife, and targeted policy is needed to address specific issues. But the root of many of these issues is the concentrated economic power that firms have been able to accrue and abuse. Effective competition policy is just the tool to address that power. The Competition Bureau’s expanded investigation into Google’s ad tech practices, building on the U.S. DOJ’s case against the tech giant, should be the first step in using Canada’s reformed competition law to restore fair competition to key digital markets. As corporations continue to wield enormous influence over our lives and economy, we must persist in rebalancing that power in the public interest. As Ling notes, “entrepreneurship can’t survive in a rigged market.” True for markets well beyond news, Canada’s task is to restore fairness to these rigged markets. New Competition Rules Pointed at Pharma MonopoliesThis week, Canadian company JAMP Pharma filed an application with the Competition Tribunal alleging anticompetitive practices by global pharmaceutical giant J&J. The case centers on Janssen's attempts to maintain monopoly control over the biologic drug ustekinumab, which is used to treat the autoimmune disease psoriasis. JAMP accuses J&J of a litany of anticompetitive acts, including gaming the regulatory system, sham litigation, developing a fighting brand, misusing patient support programs, and predatory pricing. These tactics have allowed J&J to continue charging $4,000 per dose, generating an additional $2.1 billion in monopoly profits. This application is significant on multiple fronts. It’s one of the first cases to make use of private access to Canada’s competition law, allowing companies to bring cases without the Competition Bureau. It also makes use of Canada’s strengthened abuse of dominance laws, arguing that “yesterday’s abusive practices are no longer shielded from legal scrutiny today." The allegations also shine a light on how pharmaceutical companies can abuse patent and regulatory regimes to extend their monopolies beyond their intended limits. Hopefully the first of many, the JAMP case shows how Canada’s reformed law can be put to work breaking monopolies in all sectors of the Canadian economy. Hearn: Making Competition Cool AgainThis week, competition expert Denise Hearn appeared on David Moscrop's "Open to Debate" podcast to discuss Canada's monopoly moment. Hearn, co-author of "The Myth of Capitalism," offered valuable insights into the recent momentum behind competition policy reform in Canada. Hearn highlighted the significance of unanimously passed amendments to the Competition Act, which give regulators new tools like presumptions against merger in concentrated industries. She also emphasized the need for a whole-of-government approach to competition policy, similar to Biden's executive order in the U.S. However, Hearn cautions that powerful corporate interests are already mobilizing to oppose these changes. She says that sustaining the competition revival will require reframing the issue as fundamental to democracy. Hearn also argued for the importance of making antitrust cool again. By reframing competition policy as fundamental to economic dynamism, we can build broader public support for these crucial reforms. As Canada works to catch up with global leaders in antitrust enforcement, the next few years will be pivotal. The challenge now is to sustain this competition revival in the face of pushback from entrenched corporate interests. With experts like Hearn leading the charge, there's reason for optimism that we can create a more competitive, dynamic economy that works for all Canadians. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca |