March 29, 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.
Competition Bureau Begins its Review of Paramount-Warner Bros DiscoveryWhile the attention has understandably been on the homegrown drama surrounding Netflix and Paramount’s dueling offers and the intrusion of President Trump, don’t count Canada out in the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. This week we saw that the Competition Bureau has kicked off its review of the entertainment megadeal, beginning the first 30 day timer in the competition law enforcer’s merger review process. While both companies are American, the transaction would have real impacts on multiple fronts in Canada. First, for consumers, a streaming market that has already seen increasing prices would further consolidate and throw the fate of Crave, the largest Canadian streaming service, into question given its reliance on Warner Bros. content. Paramount competes with Crave through its own streaming offering, Paramount+, and its enthusiasm for sharing the studio’s crown jewels is likely to be low. The merger also has important implications for the Canadian workers that produce the content each studio offers. Of the nearly $10 billion spent on film and television production in Canada annually, just about half is for foreign studios like Paramount and Warner Bros. Mergers mean less, not more, and with the combined Paramount-WBD entity coming out of the deal holding approximately $79 billion USD in debt, the hunt for savings would be on. While the Bureau will be tempted to sit back and let federal and state enforcers in the U.S. sort this out, this would be a mistake. Canadian consumers and workers are implicated in this transaction and deserve a say over the future of entertainment in our own country. While the decision to block the transaction may be out of the Bureau’s hands, a strong stance on the megamerger is the only way to ensure the interests of Canadians make the final cut. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Toronto Gets Serious About its Grocery MarketOn Friday, Toronto City Council passed a motion to develop a strategy for municipally operated grocery stores across the city, aiming to provide greater access and more affordable food for Torontonians. Publicly operated grocery stores are gaining steam in North America, with New York City’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani and NDP leadership hopeful Avi Lewis pitching the idea as part of their platforms. At CAMP we welcome the potential for more competition in the grocery space, but a public grocer is only one part of the puzzle. Thankfully, the motion reflects a broader focus on making competition in grocery work for Canadians. Amendments by Mayor Olivia Chow direct city staff to find solutions to problems hampering competition, public or private, in the grocery market today. In the mayor’s sights are property controls that allow grocers to control where their competitors set up shop and increased transparency in the prices shoppers see on the grocery aisle. The issue of property controls in particular is garnering increased attention with Manitoba’s move to ban the practice and Ontario Liberal Party leadership hopeful Eric Lombardi calling for Ontario to do the same. At CAMP we’re glad to see the City of Toronto get into the fight for more affordable groceries with a mix of pro-competition and pro-consumer ideas. While the announcement of a consultation is rarely thrilling, the study will allow the city to hear from experts, local communities, and industry about how grocery markets can work better for Torontonians. Every level of government has a role to play in making life more affordable for Canadians, and Canada’s largest city has the chance to lead by example. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Meta’s Bad Bad Not Good WeekMeta suffered multiple legal losses in the U.S. this week, opening up a potential vulnerability in the legal armour that has protected the company to date. A jury in Los Angeles ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million USD in damages to a woman who argued that the companies engineered their platforms to be addictive, harming her mental health over decades of use. Another case in New Mexico saw Meta ordered to pay $375 million USD for exposing minors to harmful content in breach of state laws. Finally, a Delaware court ruled that Meta’s insurers don’t have to provide legal representation in lawsuits against the company because they were based on intentional conduct. Companies like Google and Meta typically rely on U.S. laws like section 230 to exclude them from liability for what their users post on their platforms. While the section’s intention to preserve free speech online is noble, the provision has ballooned to shield Meta and Google from outcomes that are product of the design of the platforms themselves. By focusing on that intentional design rather than the harmful content itself, the wins this week show that an important gap has been found that could deliver accountability while preserving free speech. Nearly every piece of content we see online is curated by algorithms to maximize engagement and accordingly the value of advertising on the platform. Whether it’s turning a blind eye to scams or encouraging addictive designs, evidence is mounting that these companies are well aware of the systematic harms their platforms generate. By focusing on the systems rather than the content itself, the court wins this week give some hope that the era of these platforms being above the law may be over. 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.