September 7, 2025Welcome 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 Gets a Slap on the Wrist for Its Search MonopolyFive years after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched their antitrust lawsuit against Google’s monopoly in online search, a judge has determined what should be done to restore competition. The answer? Not much. Despite finding that Google holds a monopoly in online search, reinforced by Google’s multi-billion-dollar annual payouts to companies like Apple, Judge Mehta has decided to effectively leave Google’s dominance untouched. The DOJ had pitched Judge Mehta a sweeping remedy package: force Google to sell off the Chrome browser, a key source for the data underpinning the company’s search dominance, ban multi-billion-dollar payouts to Apple, and open Google’s search index to foster competition. But in the end the penalty for maintaining an illegal monopoly will be no more than a slap on the wrist. Google keeps Chrome, remains able to pay off potential competitors, and must share only a slice of its data to search competitors. One reason we’re particularly pessimistic? Even the competitors who the data-sharing portion of the remedy is intended to give a leg up are giving it a thumbs down. Judge Mehta’s hands off remedy relies on strong assumptions that the search market is being disrupted by AI, something that contradicts his own findings in the decision that found Google held a monopoly. Framed as humility, the decision not to act places enormous weight on one judge’s ability to predict the future. While disappointing, the Google search remedy decision is a reminder that we can’t always count on others to do our homework for us. If we want to create more vibrant and competitive markets, from online search to grocery store shelves, we need to be ready to do the hard work ourselves. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰· Lau, ‘The problem of monopoly’: Why Google’s light anti-trust penalties could pose a dilemma for Canada (Financial Post) Canadians for Digital SovereigntyThis week, CAMP joined over 60 civil society representatives and organizations in calling on the Carney government to stand firmly in defense of Canada’s digital sovereignty. In important areas of our economy, from cloud computing, to advertising, to e-commerce, Canadian markets are dominated by a small number of American firms. In 2025, this longstanding monopoly problem has taken on a new dimension as these firms align themselves with a U.S. government increasingly hostile to Canadian interests. When we talk about digital sovereignty, we mean our ability as Canadians to have a say over the services and technologies we depend on every day. While not a kitchen table issue, the consequences of our dependence would be quickly felt if our relationship with the U.S. sours further. Just one example, continued access to the cloud computing services that a growing number of Canadian businesses and governments rely on could become a lever for concessions on trade and security that we would otherwise refuse. Ensuring our digital sovereignty doesn’t mean shutting Canada off from the rest of the world. It means diversifying the markets for these important digital services and standing firm on our right to have a say over how companies operate within our borders. We’re at a pivotal moment where our assumptions about our relationship with the U.S. and the global companies headquartered there have fundamentally shifted. If we want to maintain our independence and avoid becoming the 51st state tomorrow, we need to start taking our digital sovereignty seriously today. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Breaking the Law, Breaking the LawAt CAMP, we’re picky. We don’t just want more competition in our economy; we want more fair competition. Fair competition is the kind that generates the benefits we often associate with competition: lower prices, better wages, more choices. Unfair competition is the opposite: ways to get ahead in a market that do not benefit or even harm consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs. Burning down your competitor’s store is fiercely competitive. But it’s an unfair method of competition that costs rather than benefits our economy. This week, Open Markets’ Legal Director Sandeep Vaheesan has a new paper laying out the costs and consequences of lawbreaking as a method of competition. The paper puts much needed intellectual weight behind the idea that not all competition is good competition. Business conduct is based on a common set of rules that law abiding businesses follow. When the source of a competitive advantage is not superior products or better pricing but instead skirting labour, environmental, or privacy laws, citizens are harmed by these unfair methods of competition. Vaheesan argues that this kind of lawbreaking should be considered a violation of not just the underlying laws, but also the laws governing fair competition in our economies. Vaheesan’s paper is an important reminder that we need to keep fair competition as our north star if we want to build an economy that works for everyday Canadians. Competition that puts workers in danger, poisons our environment, and erodes our privacy will cost us in the long run and punish companies that choose to compete fairly. Our competition laws need to benefit companies that play fairly and punish those that cut corners to get ahead. When a few players are allowed to flaunt the rules, everyone pays the price of a rigged game. 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.