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 |
CAMP provides 2025 pre-budget submission to federal government
The Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP) is asking the federal government to provide the Competition Bureau with additional funding to promote the protection of competition and affordability after the passage of C-56 and C-59.
In its work enforcing the law, the Competition Bureau goes toe-to-toe with some of the largest corporations not just in the country but in the world. After more than a decade of financial stagnation, in 2021 the government provided the Competition Bureau with a much-needed increase to its annual budget of $96 million over 5 years and $27.5 million annually thereafter.
But while this made up for the real decline in resources that had occurred over the preceding decade, that funding increase did not contemplate the expanded responsibilities and scope that C-56 and C-59 imply for the law enforcement agency. To expand the Competition Bureau's efforts in combatting abuse of dominance and studying markets across the economy, the federal government should bolster the resources of Canada's competition cop.
Effective laws depend on effective enforcement, and without proper funding Canadians will not fully benefit from a more active and assertive law to protect competition in our economy.
You can read the full pre-budget submission here.
No Frills local produce text campaign quickly turns sour
CBC
A text blast campaign from Loblaw-owned No Frills encouraging customers to buy local produce at the store instead of a farmers’ market wasn’t well received by many shoppers or farmers.
Letters: Breaking Up Isn't Hard to Do
July 28, 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.
The Growing Global Push to Dismantle Corporate GiantsA fascinating new report from our friends at the Balanced Economy Project (BEP) makes a compelling case for breaking up dominant firms that have come to characterize our economies. From Standard Oil to IG Farben to AT&T, history shows us that breakups can be a powerful tool for protecting democracy and fostering economic dynamism. In the report, BEP outlines this history while answering important questions about the feasibility and kinds of benefits that can result from corporate breakups. Canada may not be ready to break up our domestic giants yet, but we’ve taken important steps to prevent them from growing larger. By modernizing our competition law with stronger safeguards against consolidation and empowering individual companies to fight back against monopolists, there’s been a sea change in our approach to concentrated corporate power. While the reforms have been critical, their effectiveness comes down to assertive enforcement. While next year may bring a change in government, it's worth remembering that stronger competition law has garnered cross party support. Regulators in the U.S. have been showing what kind of positive impact stronger enforcement of even imperfect laws can have on the economy, and the powers that be are reacting accordingly. In the wake of Joe Biden, the strongest president on competition policy in living memory, pulling out of the presidential race, powerful donors see an opportunity to change direction on antitrust. Billionaires Barry Diller and Reid Hoffman have publicly expressed their hope that potential presidential nominee Kamala Harris would give Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan the boot if elected. Major strides have been made globally in the fight against concentrated corporate power, and the fight continues as entrenched incumbents push back against this progress. Anti-monopolists should celebrate our wins, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. Loblaw Settles Bread Price-Fixing Class ActionsLoblaw and its parent company George Weston have agreed to pay $500 million to settle two class-action lawsuits over their role in the great Canadian bread price-fixing scandal. While a major class action win, it’s worth noting that estimates of the harm caused to consumers by the cartel conduct are estimated north of $5 billion over its 15 year run. The class action win is also a reminder that after more than six years since it was announced, the Competition Bureau's original investigation into the grocery giant’s is still ongoing. If an investigation into a cartel where a leading player comes forward with information takes this long to resolve, how long will it take to prosecute a major cartel where none of its participants cooperate with authorities? Canadians deserve transparency into why it is taking so long for justice to be served in one of the country’s most monumental competition cases, and rapid resolution of these harmful cases going forward. The Line Between Data-Driven and CollusionThis week the Competition Bureau announced it had obtained a court order to advance an investigation into data analytics firm Kalibrate's services for the retail gas industry. Kalibrate provides guidance to gas station operators on how they should price their products by giving them a window into the pricing behaviour of their competitors. Sounds helpful to gas stations, but the Bureau is concerned that these services may be a little too helpful. Similar to the Agri Stats case in agriculture markets in the United States, the Bureau is concerned that the exchange of information is dampening competition between market participants by facilitating coordination. The investigation highlights a growing challenge in competition policy, how to ensure that data-driven tools don’t become a smokescreen for plain old price fixing. In our submission to the enforcer’s consultation on AI and competition, CAMP called on the Bureau to investigate the potential for algorithmic decision-making to facilitate collusion. The Kalibrate investigation is a welcome sign that the Bureau is taking that potential seriously. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca |
Competition watchdog probing gas prices and a company he thinks might be 'guiding' them
The National Post
The Competition Bureau suspects analytics company Kalibrate Canada may be ‘guiding’ gas prices with potentially ‘anticompetitive’ services to over 1,700 fuel stations in Canada.
The court documents show that the Competition Bureau believes Kalibrate collects pricing, cost and output information from gas stations across Canada and then uses “artificial intelligence, machine learning, algorithms and bespoke consulting services” to offer “pricing guidance” to gas station operators.