May 25, 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 installment we have:

• Sofina Foods aims to consolidate the Canadian turkey market with its acquisition of Exceldor Cooperative
• Companies continue to abandon supposed environmental claims when asked to show their work
• Trump’s FTC backs down on important buyer power case, casting doubts on future of U.S. enforcement

Now let’s dive in.

Sofina Foods Tries to Build a Turkey Titan

Sofina Foods Inc. recently announced its proposed acquisition of Quebec-based Exceldor Cooperative, a move that would further consolidate and reduce choice in Canada’s poultry sector. Exceldor, a cooperative consisting of roughly 330 turkey and chicken producers employing approximately 3,700, has long provided farmers bargaining power against industry giants.

Canada’s poultry market is already dominated by a small number of companies (including Maple Leaf Foods, Sofina, Olymel’s, among others). Though public information is limited, sources indicate that the transaction could put half of Canada’s turkey market in the hands of a single producer. Amid an ongoing cost of living crisis, the last thing Canadians need is more concentration in the food system.

Regulatory scrutiny from the Competition Bureau will be pivotal, especially given CAMP’s findings that the Bureau typically reaches negotiated settlements rather than blocking mergers in Canada’s food system. Though Canada’s laws have changed, the previous narratives around efficiency and economies of scale still loom large in the sector. Given its focus on the retail grocery space, the Bureau must conduct a full review of the transaction and go public with its findings.

While CAMP stays vigilant, we depend on information provided to us by readers and supporters to stay up to date on transactions like these that can easily slip under the radar. As always if you hear any monopoly rumblings don’t hesitate to drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• Severijns, Critics say continuation funds risk Ponzi dynamics, (Investment Office)

Big Corps Drop CSR Charade on Environmental Claims

Last summer, as part of its reform of competition law, Ottawa strengthened Canada’s approach to greenwashing, that is, false claims about environmental impact or commitments. Now businesses making public environmental or sustainability claims must have evidence – verifiable data or proper testing – to back them up. In practice, these changes simply update truth-in-advertising rules for the climate age: if you boast “100% green” or “carbon neutral,” you need a paper trail to prove it.

Hardly radical demands, but as UOttawa law professor Jennifer Quaid and greenwashing expert Julien O. Beaulieu lay out in a recent piece, the corporate community is losing it. Lobbyists like the Pathways Alliance scrubbed websites of climate goals, citing “significant uncertainty” and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has demanded repeal of the truth-in-advertising amendments. Canada’s Big Banks have joined the chorus: Royal Bank of Canada quietly abandoned its $500 billion sustainable financing pledge and stopped disclosing some emissions data, attributing the change to the new rules.

In short, companies that were happy to ride the green wave when all you had to do was take their word for it are now throwing in the towel when asked to show their work. In reality, these anti-greenwashing measures are minimal. They neither ban environmental initiatives nor advertising – they just prohibit unsupported claims. As usual, Canada took the middle path, with jurisdictions like the E.U. taking a much harder line on these claims.

Before these reforms, greenwashing was rampant: false climate pledges duped consumers and sidelined legitimate clean-tech competitors. If corporations mean what they say when it comes to environmental commitments, requiring “adequate and proper substantiation” should be the bare minimum.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Sisco, Google Faces Antitrust Investigation Over Character AI Deal for Chatbot Tech, (Bloomberg)
• Schwope, Europe’s Digital Sovereignty is a Democratic Imperative, (Tech Policy.Press)
• O’Hara, Trump’s new bill threatens major tax increases for Canadian companies (Globe and Mail)

FTC Abandons Antitrust Case Against PepsiCo

In a disappointing decision, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has dropped its lawsuit accusing PepsiCo of unfair pricing practices benefiting Walmart to the detriment of smaller retailers. Filed under the leadership of former FTC Chair Lina Khan, the case targeted PepsiCo’s alleged use of secret discounts and promotional deals to give Walmart a substantial advantage over competitors, harming competition and raising prices.

To excuse their retreat, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador have taken to calling the case politically motivated, resulting in immediate criticism from antitrust advocates. Khan herself condemned the decision, arguing it effectively allows powerful retailers and suppliers unchecked freedom to use their market dominance to manipulate pricing and undermine smaller competitors. Antitrust expert Sandeep Vaheesan at the Open Markets Institute noted that if there were deficiencies in the case they could have been addressed in an amended complaint rather allowing retail giants PepsiCo and Walmart to escape scrutiny.

The decision is a sign that the Trump FTC’s enthusiasm for economic populism only goes so far. The FTC had alleged PepsiCo’s conduct had raised consumer grocery bills and squeezed local grocers, but now we’re left to speculate about unseen deals that might still be tilting the playing field towards monopoly. Abandoning the case is another unfortunate sign that while the Trump FTC likes to talk tough on corporate power they aren’t willing to take the field.

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​

​