March 8, 2026Welcome 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.
Google Loses Constitutional Challenge to Competition Act Financial PenaltiesFinally, some good news. This week, the Competition Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by Google with the potential to shape the future of competition law in Canada. Preparations are underway for the Competition Bureau to take Google to trial in early 2027 (too long, we know) for abusing its dominance in online advertising. In response to the Bureau’s suit, Google argued that the potential financial penalties from the trial could be so large that they qualified as a criminal punishment. Google’s position was that accordingly it should have the same rights as someone under criminal persecution, those rights had been violated, and the entire case should be brought to a halt. So, what does this mean and why does it matter? Not so long ago, Canada’s competition law had loser monetary penalties, capping out at $10 million ($15 million if you really misbehaved). For reference, last year Google’s revenue in Canadian dollars was ~$540 billion. To call the old penalties a parking ticket would be an insult to parking tickets. But in 2023 that changed. Canada beefed up its competition laws and changed the ceiling for penalties to include 3% of annual worldwide revenues over the course of the conduct. This means monetary penalties finally have the heft to deter abuses of corporate dominance. Had Google’s complaint succeeded, not only would this important case be put on ice, but the ability of the Tribunal to use monetary penalties to deter anti-competitive conduct would have been thrown into question. Monetary penalties, because they don’t address the underlying issue, are far from ideal when it comes to competition remedies. But when paired with other remedies like breakups and bans, they can be a deterrent and source of restitution for harms to competition. We’re still waiting anxiously to see Google’s abuse of dominance case go to trial. But in the meantime, the Tribunal’s decision this week is an important signal that stronger powers under the Competition Act are here to stay. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Online Betting Competition isn’t Delivering for OntariansIf you’ve watched live sports recently, you’ve likely been inundated with ads for online betting apps. Though the federal government opened the door to single-event sports betting in 2021, Ontario is so far the only province to have opened its online betting markets to competition in 2022. Opening markets typically brings the expected benefits of competition, lower prices, higher quality, more choice. But when the market itself generates negative side effects, competition can end up being a race to the bottom. In the case of online betting in Ontario, those costs are starting to add up. This week a new report found that since opening up competition, the number of gambling related calls to Ontario’s mental health hotline have increased 300%. Paired with gambling-related bankruptcies quadrupling, this suggests a sharp uptick in harmful gambling habits, particularly among young men. Gambling apps don’t win by pitching moderation. They compete through gamification, free introductory bets, and splurging on ad spending. Like any market with social side effects, most users strike a better balance with their use of these apps. But data from Ontario suggests that the current approach is causing real harms to vulnerable users. We want more competition in Canada, but online betting reminds us that we need to think about the kind of competition we want. We need to take a pause and evaluate what the consequences of competition have been in this market and consider whether some markets should stay closed. Absent that, researchers at Cardus suggest that harms could be reduced by taking steps like banning in-game betting and omnipresent gambling ads. Competition isn’t always the answer, and with stakes this high we might be better served by walking away from the table. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Front Row at Ticketmaster Live NationThe antitrust case against Ticketmaster Live Nation brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) went to trial this week, the first major salvo against the company’s dominance in live entertainment. The case is long time coming. Ticketmaster was allowed to consummate its merger with Live Nation in 2010, and the sixteen year experiment of allowing the concert goliath to combine has, in the words of Kid Rock, “failed miserably.” At the heart of the trial is Ticketmaster’s ability to leverage their dominant positions across the entertainment ecosystem, ticketing, venue ownership, artist representation, to squeeze out competing players. Now, finally, the monopoly at the heart of the live entertainment industry in the U.S. and Canada will have to answer for at least some of the damage it has caused to concertgoers, artists, independent venues, and competitors. At stake is the structure of the company itself. Though the judge overseeing the trial has narrowed the claims of the lawsuit, a breakup of the company’s ticketing and venue management lines of business is still in the mix. Rather than “thou shalt not” conduct requirements that have proven ineffective in the past, a breakup would get to heart of how Ticketmaster flexes power across the live entertainment landscape. Though occurring in the U.S., the trial will likely have implications for the Canadian concertgoing market. If the DOJ is successful, a breakup of the company or far-reaching remedy that prevents Ticketmaster from engaging in anticompetitive conduct could apply to venues north of the border. The outcome will also be instructive for a similar lawsuit brought by the Consumers Council of Canada, which is currently seeking leave to the Competition Tribunal. If you’re interested in the day-to-day of the trial, be sure to check out Gigi Liman’s coverage at Big Tech On Trial for excellent coverage and context of a trial that will be critical for concertgoers, artists, and independent venues. 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 |
Subscribe to our Enewsletter
Stay up to date on CAMP’s latest news, work and opportunities to get involved.
By subscribing, you consent to our Privacy Policy and to receive communications. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Stay Connected
Donate
Your contribution supports CAMP’s efforts to create a more democratic economy that works for all Canadians.