September 28, 2025

Welcome 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:

• A new CAMP report outlines the national security risks posed by online advertising monopolies
• Google documents show that a breakup of its ad monopoly is technically feasible
• FTC celebrates settlement against Amazon, but don’t pop the champagne just yet

If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP

Now let’s dive in.

New CAMP Report: Advertising Monopolies and Canada’s National Security

Online advertising is the business model of much of the commercial internet. Over the past two decades, increasingly sophisticated systems have been developed to automatically match millions of ads to billions of targeted ads every day. But this market also represents a threat to threat to the security of Canadians and addressing it means facing off against the monopolies that dominate the online advertising world.

Data collection is big business, but it runs afoul of many expectations about privacy. Tim Hortons collected highly granular location data with its app, even when it wasn’t open. Loblaws leverages its dominant position as a grocer to collect vast amounts of data to target and upsell consumers at scale. Over time an individual’s profile can reveal intimate details about their habits, social networks, health, and more. It’s no surprise then, that intelligence agencies foreign and domestic have been eager to get their hands on this data, even if it means working with private vendors and flouting the norms of privacy.

Advertising data, a form of “commercially available information” is a double-edged sword, a resource and a risk for intelligence agencies. As a recent investigation by Irish public broadcaster revealed, location datasets available for purchase can be used to identify individuals who work at secure facilities, and even to track the movements of naval vessels. Advertising systems can also be used to surreptitiously serve malware and compromise secure networks, and act as vectors for influence and propaganda campaigns.

We’ continue to be exposed to this risk because it’s profitable, especially for the giants of online advertising: Google, Meta and Amazon. The only way out is by confronting that power and reclaiming our ability to keep ourselves secure online. Check out Electric Eyes: Advertising Monopolies and Canada’s National Security to learn more.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• Deschamps, Tech giants control of online advertising puts national security at risk: report (Edmonton Sun)
• Ling, These companies say they care about kids’ safety. Their actions suggest otherwise (Toronto Star)
• de Montigny, Publicités en ligne : un marché qui pose des risques pour la sécurité nationale (Radio Canada)

Breaking Up Isn’t Hard to Do

The outcome of the U.S. case against Google’s search monopoly was a letdown, but it’s not the only American challenge to the search giant’s dominance. This week, the U.S. case against Google’s dominance in online advertising entered the remedies phase, bringing another potential shot to break up the company’s stranglehold on a market critical to the future of the internet. As was the case in the search trial, the judge has already established that Google holds a monopoly in online advertising and has used that position to harm competitors and subjugate customers. Now, they just need to decide what to do about it.

From the outset, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has sought divestiture and open-sourcing as the most effective way to open up the market for more competition. The government argues these would give new entrants a chance to start, technology wise, at what has otherwise become the industry standard. Google has argued that breaking up its ad monopoly will have harmful effects on publishers, privacy, and that it’s too difficult a technical feat because the products are too integrated and too reliant on Google’s infrastructure.

Or maybe not. This week, Google’s arguments seemed to come undone as examination of witnesses and documents revealed that between 2020 and 2024 they had already examined the possibility of separating and even open-sourcing parts of AdX and DfP, Google’s ad exchange and it’s sell-side platform for publishers. Their internal conclusion? Both were completely feasible from a technical perspective. Consider this just the most recent example of the rich tradition of major tech firms lying outright to protect their walled gardens. We’re still waiting to see whether this trial will deliver material improvements to competition, but Google’s own documents show us that real change is possible.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Ramzanali, How to Regulate the Cloud: A Blueprint to Address the Market Failures and National Security Risks of Cloud Computing (Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator)
• Shell and Doyle, Build, baby, build. Or sell, baby, sell? Canada should reject Sunoco’s takeover of Parkland, (Policy Options)
• Sisco, Open-Source AI Models Boost Competition, DOJ Antitrust Head Says, (Bloomberg)

An Historic Slap on the Wrist for Amazon

After two years, the FTC has settled its challenge of Amazon’s deceptive practices around Prime subscriptions, landing a $2.5 billion USD fine and promises that the e-commerce giant will refrain from future consumer deception. At issue was Amazon’s use of dark patterns to trick consumers into signing up for Prime and then making it exceedingly difficult for them to cancel their subscription, which automatically renewed itself.

Dark patterns, or deceptive design patterns are techniques that subtly coach users into or away from specific actions. Pre-checked boxes, hidden fees, and obstruction are common tactics that mislead consumers. They’re a global problem, harming trust, gouging consumers, and demoralizing faith in markets. Canadian consumer protection and privacy authorities have been, presumably, on the case. But greater efforts are required. Just one example: complaints that Canadian telecom customers were unable to unsubscribe from services jumped 47% in 2023-2024.

Although the FTC is keen to label this fine an “historic” and “monumental win” for American consumers, it doesn’t amount to much. Amazon had a 2024 net income of nearly $60 billion USD, over twenty times the FTC fine. While the FTC also secured a commitment from Amazon for clearer terms for Prime subscriptions and a simplified cancellation process, these kinds of deceptive practices still riddle the online marketplace. If the FTC wanted a real historic win for American consumers, it would have completed its court challenge of the giant and take another crack at its torpedoed “click-to-cancel” rule that would make it as easy for customers to cancel services as it is to sign up for them. While we’re at it, Canada should get one too.

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​

​