August 3, 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:

• CAMP responds to the Competition Bureau’s study of algorithmic pricing
• CAMP fellow Andrew Paulley lays out the importance of local competition amid tariff turmoil
• Pay to play corruption in the Trump administration derails economic populist hopes

If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP

Now let’s dive in.

Protecting Canadians from Algorithmic Collusion

Algorithms and data now drive critical business decisions, including pricing. When used to improve business performance, this is a positive development. But algorithmic pricing also has the potential to enable collusion, reducing competition and raising prices for consumers. As these tools spread to grocery stores, gas stations, and rental companies, Canada’s law must keep up.

Many are familiar with the image of a smoky backroom where cartel participants meet to set prices at the expense of consumers. But algorithmic collusion digitizes this process, even without the knowledge of its users. Algorithmic collusion occurs when algorithms coordinate pricing between competitors without explicit agreement, often using sensitive competitor data that would be otherwise unavailable to a business.

To ensure that Canadians are protected from all forms of collusion, this week CAMP provided a submission to the Competition Bureau’s call for information on algorithmic pricing. The submission recommends two actions: the Bureau continue and expand investigations into algorithmic collusion in markets like gas and housing, and governments should update our laws to protect Canadians from algorithmic collusion and unfair price discrimination.

Canadians deserve fair competition in all markets, but the issue is particularly urgent in areas where consumers already face limited choice. Following U.S. examples, Canadian provinces should ban the use of algorithmic pricing in key markets such as rental housing. Amid an all-hands-on-deck effort to reduce the cost of living for Canadians, from the pump to the rental market, tackling algorithmic collusion should be a priority for policymakers at all levels.

Even in a Tariff World, Local Markets Matter

On the other side of Trump’s August 1st deadline, Canada finds itself in good company with countries around the world stuck with record-setting tariffs. Despite trade agreement protections, Canada still faces a serious economic shock. After COVID supply chain shocks and ongoing tariff drama, Canadians know more about global supply chains than they would like. But even in a world with headlines dominated by tariffs, the lives of Canadians are still shaped by the local markets around us and the options they offer.

This week, CAMP fellow Andrew Paulley explains why amid tariffs, local competition remains important as ever. As Paulley shows, local competition is still a deciding factor in the markets for groceries, financial services, and housing.

Most people, urban or rural, won’t travel more than four kilometers to save on groceries. Banks build more branches than would otherwise be efficient because they know a local branch remains important to consumers, especially when they decide to switch banks. When moving, people often stay in their own neighbourhood, narrowing the scope of the relevant market.

While more of our commercial lives moves online, the markets in our immediate vicinity continue to play an important role. Though global issues dominate headlines, Canadians still deserve competition in their own backyard.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Khan, A Secret to Zohran Mamdani’s Success (New York Times)
• Devadiga, Google Keeps Making Smartphones Worse (Jacobin)
• Melendez, Consumer Credit- CHLA praises FHFA move to allow competing credit scores (Vital Law)

Make America Grift Again

In the early, early days of the Trump administration, we at CAMP held out some optimism that the President’s populist streak would extend to his government’s approach to antitrust and American monopolies. The MAGA coalition included anti-Big Tech voices, and hires like Gail Slater at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Mark Meador at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) talked a good game on enforcement.

This week that optimism ran headfirst into the brick wall reality of the boozy backroom deals and pay-to-play corruption that are hallmarks of the second Trump administration. For UnHerd, Sohrab Ahmari details how Trump officials strongarmed Slater into accepting a bogus settlement in the $14 billion HPE-Juniper acquisition and fired two of her senior attorneys for pushing back.

Here the term boozy backroom is literal, as Ahmari’s reporting shows that the settlement that Slater pushed back on was cooked up over drinks at a swanky D.C. The HPE-Juniper merger is not a done deal just yet. Corruption during the Nixon era led to the Tunney Act, a process that allows a judge to examine antitrust settlements for improper influence. Normally a formality, the near-parody level outcome of a few drinks between friends makes intervention more likely.

Whatever the outcome of the Tunney Act review, it’s unlikely this event will be an outlier. Despite early hope that Trump 2 would continue the antitrust push under Biden and even Trump 1, these tactics suggest outright corruption is the norm. While several important antitrust cases, especially those against Big Tech, continue in the U.S., the HPE-Juniper saga suggests the era of the U.S. federal government as an antitrust leader may be ending.

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​

​