March 15, 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.
CRTC Bans Fees That Keep Canadians Locked in Cell PlansThis week, the CRTC has banned cellphone and internet service providers from charging fees when customers activate or modify their plans. This means no activation fees, no fees when you change an aspect of your plan, and best of all, no fees for cancelling your plan. This ruling is part of the CRTC’s Consumer Protections Action Plan, which, as of October 2025, lays out the CRTC roadmap for stronger protection of Canadian telecom consumers. Though work remains to be done, CAMP welcomes the CRTC’s decision to remove a key source of friction for Canadian consumers. Fees on consumers that want to add, modify or cancel plans are a subtle tactic for raising costs while keeping advertised prices flat. But they also discipline customers trying to get the most out of competition in the market. The CRTC correctly identifies these junk fees as not just a cost to consumers but also a barrier to real competition. By increasing the cost of moving providers, telcos discourage consumers from seeking out better deals. This means consumers can stay locked in, even when they could be getting better service elsewhere. In the past year, CAMP has become a more active participant representing the public interest in CRTC proceedings, enabled by a cost awards process that allows civil society organizations to go toe-to-toe with the likes of Rogers, Bell and Telus. In the past year, CAMP has advocated for better consumer protections during service outages and to protect the wholesale system that lets independent internet companies compete with the Big 3. In 2026, CAMP will continue to advocate for consumers and competition in front of the CRTC. The banning of switching fees should be just the first in a series of wins for telecom consumers this year. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Why Private Markets Should Stay PrivateThe Ontario Securities and Commission (OSC), the provincial capital markets regulator, wants to give the average investor easier access to private markets, including investments into private equity, and other assets that are not listed on public exchanges. The OSC pitches this as an opportunity to increase the amount of capital available for investment and to give regular folks access to potential returns they might otherwise by shut out from. But in a piece for the Globe this week, CAMP fellow Rachel Wasserman and former OSC chair Edward Waitzer argue that the prospect may be less appealing for mom and pop investors than it seems. Private markets are more opaque than their public counterparts where regulators require disclosure and transparency to ensure investors have accurate information. They’re also less liquid, meaning that getting out of an underperforming asset is more difficult than it would be on a public exchange. Retail investors would also be welcomed in just as the smart money starts to head out the door. The S&P index has outperformed private equity over one-, five-and ten-year time periods, and several private markets are seeing record outflows and holds on investors cashing out. Wasserman and Waitzer argue that opening these markets to retail investors could even be a bad deal for the private markets themselves. With retail investors comes the potential for scrutiny, regulation and litigation, eroding the looser treatment that attracted more sophisticated capital in the first place. While more opportunity for the masses sounds attractive at first, under the hood are serious risks for both retail and institutional investors. Ontario should heed these risks and keep private markets private. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
The Art of Caving ImmediatelyOn Monday, Ticketmaster Live Nation and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced they had reached a settlement of the antitrust case against the company’s live entertainment monopoly. While settlements in antitrust cases are common, this is not one of those cases. Details from the courtroom are sordid, with the presiding judge, the DOJ’s own prosecutor, and state attorneys general all blindsided by a settlement apparently cooked between Ticketmaster and DOJ leadership by the end of the first week of the trial. It will not shock you to learn that the settlement is weak. Ticketmaster’s concessions to competitors are a watered down “open sourcing” of their platform, granting them the privilege to use a busted system propped up by Live Nation’s dominance in venues and artist representation. Live Nation will also allow competitors to book shows at 13 select amphitheaters, a fraction of its holdings. Finally, there’s a 15% cap on fees, which leaked internal messages show Ticketmaster employees discuss as “robbing [concertgoers] blind.” Thankfully, the state attorneys general that brought the case with the DOJ intend to pursue their own claims against Ticketmaster Live Nation. New York Attorney General Letitia James did not mince words: “We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.” The DOJ backing down means that the parallel competition law case brought by the Consumer’s Council of Canada against Ticketmaster is now even more important. The disappointing outcome is another reminder than in the Trump era we cannot count on the U.S. to solve our problems for us. 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.