> Trade Association Compliance | CANADIAN COMPETITION LAW

Categories

Archives


TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
AND CANADIAN COMPETITION LAW

“A [compliance] program … plays a crucial role for trade associations because trade associations face unique compliance issues. Given that an association provides a forum where competitors collaborate on association activities, trade associations are exposed to greater risks of anti-competitive conduct. A number of past Bureau cases have involved trade associations that were engaged in agreements to harm competition. It is therefore critical that trade associations implement credible and effective programs with strict codes of ethics and conduct. Such programs may allow trade associations and [their] members to avoid improper actions and to protect themselves from being used as a conduit for illegal activities. They may also allow trade association members to fully benefit from the association’s activities while reducing the potential for inadvertent contraventions of the Acts.”

(Competition Bureau)

******************

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

(Adam Smith)

******************

“Why does this problem keep recurring? What is it about trade associations that lends itself to antitrust violations? For those of you who have practiced in this area for any length of time, the answer is obvious. A trade association is by definition a group of competitors who get together to share common interests and seek common solutions to common problems. The members of a trade association, singly and as a group, are sitting on an antitrust powder keg! And the job you have signed up for as their antitrust counsel is to help make sure they don’t play with matches.”

(Anne K. Bingaman, former Assistant Attorney General, Antirust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice)

******************

DECEMBER 2023 COMPETITION ACT AMENDMENTS

On December 15, 2023, Bill C-56 (An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act), which introduced the first of two new significant rounds of amendments to the federal Competition Act, largely came into force.

This first new round of amendments to the Competition Act, which is intended to strengthen the ability of the Competition Bureau (Bureau) and private parties to enforce Canadian competition law and enhance competition generally in Canada, includes fundamental changes to Canadian competition law not seen since the last major amendments in 2009.

In general, the amendments to the Competition Act under Bill C-56 include new broad powers for the Bureau to conduct market studies, changes to the core substantive test for abuse of dominance under section 79 (creating new two-track tests for abuse of dominance), increased penalties for abuse of dominance, broadening the civil agreements provision (section 90.1) to include agreements between non-competitors (i.e., to also apply to vertical agreements, such as distribution/supply agreements) and repealing the efficiencies defences under section 90.1 and also for mergers under section 96.

These amendments increase the potential competition law risk for companies, trade and professional associations and other entities, particularly those without credible and effective competition law compliance programs and that have not reviewed their business practices to reflect Canada’s new competition law.

The amendments introduced by Bill C-56 in December 2023 are expected to be followed by a second and more significant round of amendments contained in Bill C-59, which is currently working its way through Parliament. If passed, Bill C-59 would be the most important amendments to Canadian competition law since the current modern Competition Act replaced the former Combines Investigation Act in the 1980s.

For more information about the December 2023 amendments, see: Significant Canadian Competition Act Amendments Come Into Force (Bill C-56). See also: Competition Bureau, Guide to the December 2023 amendments to the Competition Act. For more information about Bill C-59, the second amending bill, which has not yet passed, see here.

********************

OVERVIEW OF CANADIAN COMPETITION LAW
AND TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Trade and professional associations can serve many legitimate purposes, including promoting common interests to the public, lobbying and advocacy, research, member education and the promotion and improvement of product standards.

However, because association activities commonly involve the interaction of direct competitors, they can also in some cases raise serious competition law concerns under the federal Competition Act.

In general, some of the types of association activities that can raise competition law issues include those dealing with pricing, advertising, customers, territories, market shares, terms of sale and other key aspects of competition.

Some of the more specific trade and professional association activities that can raise competition law issues include: (i) board and membership meetings, (ii) exchanges of competitively sensitive information (e.g., in connection with industry surveys or benchmarking activities), (iii) association rules and bylaws (e.g., mandatory or suggested fee guidelines, advertising restrictions, membership restrictions, etc.) and (iv) advertising or marketing restrictions.

Below is an overview of Canadian competition law that applies to key trade and professional association activities.

CANADIAN COMPETITION LAW

Legislation

Competition law in Canada is governed by the Competition Act, which is federal law of “general application” (i.e., applies to most businesses and industries across Canada, with limited exceptions) that contains both criminal and civil sections.

The Competition Act is administered and enforced by the federal Competition Bureau (Bureau), which is a federal enforcement agency headed by the Commissioner of Competition (Commissioner) and based in Ottawa.

Purposes

The Competition Act sets out four objectives of Canadian competition law that are not always easily reconcilable: (i) to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy, (ii) to expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while recognizing the role of foreign competition in Canada, (iii) to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy and (iv) to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices.

As a practical matter, at least from the perspective of the Bureau, the main overarching purpose of competition law is to ensure that consumers benefit from competitive markets.

Criminal and Civil Sections

The Competition Act contains a number of criminal sections. These include the conspiracy, bid-rigging, criminal misleading advertising and deceptive telemarketing sections. In general, these sections are enforced by the Bureau and in some cases by private litigants, prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and subject to potential criminal fines and imprisonment or civil damages in the case of private actions or class actions brought by private parties.

The Competition Act also contains a number of civil (i.e., non-criminal) sections. These include the abuse of dominance (sections 78 and 79), civil misleading advertising (section 74.01), price maintenance (section 76), refusal to deal (section 75) and tied selling, exclusive dealing and market restriction sections (under section 77). These sections are enforced by the Bureau and private litigants, matters are heard before the Competition Tribunal or in some cases provincial or federal courts and subject to potential administrative monetary penalties (AMPs, which are in essence civil fines), orders to stop conduct and other remedial measures intended to restore competition.

Enforcement

The Competition Act is administered and enforced by the Bureau, which is a federal enforcement agency headed by the Commissioner that investigates complaints by consumers and businesses and commences matters on its own initiative. The Bureau and its predecessor enforcement agencies have been investigating associations in Canada for over a century, during which time numerous Canadian associations and their members have been investigated or been the subject of fines and other penalties.

These have included associations of ambulance operators, banks, building contractors, business forms suppliers, coal dealers, corrugated box manufacturers, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, fruit growers, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, insurance salespersons, lawyers, mandarin orange importers, notaries, pharmacists, paper mills, plumbing contractors and suppliers, real estate agents and brokers, real estate boards, roofing contractors, softwood lumber dealers, surveyors and wholesale grocers, among many others. Many international cartel cases have also involved associations.

Some representative Canadian association cases have involved the Saskatchewan Roofing Contractors Association (a bid-rigging case), The Canadian Real Estate Association (an abuse of dominance case) and The Toronto Real Estate Board (also an abuse of dominance case). Some associations have also been challenged for advertising related conduct, including restrictions on member advertising and misleading advertising.

The Commissioner’s enforcement tools under the Competition Act include the power to make voluntary information requests, obtain compulsory production orders and search warrants and court orders to interview personnel under oath. The Commissioner may also apply to the federal Competition Tribunal for orders, including orders to stop conduct and/or pay civil penalties and may refer criminal matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions for criminal prosecution. Proceedings may be commenced by the Bureau both based on its own investigation or as a result of complaints or whistleblowers.

In other cases, investigations may begin as a result of a party seeking immunity or leniency under the Bureau’s Immunity or Leniency Programs, which, if all the requirements of the respective Program are met, can lead to an applicant receiving full immunity from prosecution or a reduction in penalties for cooperating with a Bureau investigation.

In addition to Bureau investigations and enforcement, private parties may in some cases commence civil actions or class actions where the criminal sections of the Competition Act are violated, including the criminal conspiracy and criminal misleading advertising sections. Private parties may also make private access applications to the Competition Tribunal for remedies, including under the refusal to deal, price maintenance and abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act.

In the context of trade associations, for example, civil actions and private access applications can be commenced by members, competitors or customers that have suffered damages as a result of the activities of an association.

The Bureau has also issued enforcement guidelines describing its enforcement approach to collaborations between competitors, including members of trade and professional associations. For more information, see: Competitor Collaboration Guidelines.

Penalties

Violating the Competition Act can result in significant penalties, lost time and negative publicity for organizations, including trade and professional associations, and their personnel. Some of the potential penalties under the Competition Act include criminal fines, civil AMPs (essentially civil fines), imprisonment, damages as a result of civil actions brought by private plaintiffs and prohibition orders or injunctions to stop conduct.

For example, the current potential penalties for violating the criminal conspiracy offences under section 45 of the Competition Act include a fine in the discretion of the court (i.e., with no upper limit), imprisonment for up to 14 years or both.

Under section 79 of the Act (abuse of dominance), under which the Bureau has commenced a number of association related cases in the past, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting a person (or persons in the case of joint abuse) from engaging in the practice or conduct.

The Tribunal may also, where it finds that a practice of anti-competitive acts amounts to conduct that prevents or lessens competition substantially in a market in which the person (or persons) have a plausible competitive interest and one of the above types of orders is not likely to restore competition in a market, order a person to take additional actions, including the divestiture of assets or shares, that are reasonable and necessary to overcome the abusive conduct in the relevant market.

In addition to the above, where the Tribunal finds that a practice of anti-competitive acts amounts to conduct that prevents or lessens competition substantially in a market in which the person has a plausible competitive interest, the Tribunal may (in addition to the above two types of orders) also order the payment of an AMP of up to the greater of $25 million ($35 million for each subsequent order), three times the value of the benefit derived from the abusive conduct or, if the latter amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of the person’s annual worldwide gross revenues.

In addition, there is also potential director and officer liability for competition law violations.

Directors, officers and executives of associations should also note that following significant amendments to the Competition Act made in June 2022 and December 2023, the penalties for a number of potentially relevant sections of the Competition Act were substantially increased, including under the criminal conspiracy and abuse of dominance provisions, as well as for misleading advertising. As such, the potential criminal or civil risk for associations that fail to comply with the Competition Act has markedly increased.

A credible and effective competition law compliance program can significantly reduce the potential criminal and civil competitio law risk for trade and professional associations and other organizations.

KEY COMPETITION ACT SECTIONS
RELEVANT TO ASSOCIATIONS

There are no specific sections of the Competition Act dealing exclusively with trade or professional association activities. However, some of the general sections of the Competition Act that are particularly relevant to association activities include the criminal conspiracy, bid-rigging, abuse of dominance, price maintenance and misleading advertising sections, which are discussed below.

Criminal Conspiracy
(Section 45)

Section 45 of the Competition Act (conspiracy), which is in many cases the most important section for trade and professional associations to understand and comply with, contains three criminal conspiracy offences. The investigation and prosecution of criminal conspiracies also remains a top enforcement priority for the Bureau.

Following amendments to section 45 in June 2022, no poach and wage-fixing agreements among competing employers are also criminal offences. These amendments came into force on June 23, 2023.

Under section 45 of the Competition Act, the following three types of “hard core” anti-competitive agreements between competitors or potential competitors are criminal offences:

1. Price-fixing agreements. Section 45(1)(a) of the Competition Act makes it a criminal offence for actual or potential competitors to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of a product (e.g., agreements to set prices, discounts, minimum prices or establish fee tariffs). “Price” is broadly defined to include discounts, rebates, allowances and price concessions. Based on the potential liability for price-fixing agreements, it is important that prices, discounts and other aspects of price are determined independently by trade and professional association members and that members do not discuss price or other competitively sensitive topics during board, association or other meetings (or virtually, such as in chat rooms, social media or e-mail exchanges).

2. Market allocation/division agreements. Section 45(1)(b) of the Competition Act makes it a criminal offence for competitors to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of a product (e.g., agreements between competitors to not compete in relation to certain customers, groups or types of customers, in certain regions or market segments or in relation to certain types of transactions or products). As with price-fixing, it is prudent for members of associations to both not expressly enter into any market allocation/division arrangements and also avoid discussions of markets, market shares or dividing or allocating geographic markets, customers or product or service lines.

3. Output/supply restriction agreements. Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act makes it a criminal offence for competitors to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of a product including services (e.g., agreements to limit the quantity or quality of products supplied, reduce the quantity of quality of products supplied to specific customers, limit increases in production or discontinue supply to specific customers or groups of customers).  This offence is also potentially broad enough that it may also apply to concerted refusals to deal or “boycotts” (agreements between competitors to refuse to deal with other marketplace participants).

In general, the risk for trade and professional associations under the criminal conspiracy section of the Competition Act is twofold: first, that a trade/professional association itself may become a party or aids or abets a criminal anti-competitive conspiracy agreement; and second, that trade/professional association members themselves may become parties to an agreement that violates section 45.

To establish these offences under section 45, it is not necessary to prove that there have been any negative effects on a market (i.e., the offences are “per se” offences, which means that merely establishing the elements of the offence is sufficient without having to show that competition was actually harmed). It is also unnecessary to prove that an agreement was ever carried out (i.e., the offence is in the agreement and not in its implementation).

Importantly for trade/professional association activities, an agreement can also be established based merely on “circumstantial evidence” (i.e., while the existence of an agreement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, an actual written agreement does not need to be produced, which can be established by other types of evidence – e.g., meetings between competitors followed by a stabilization of prices, suggestions of price-fixing, etc. in written documents or e-mails, etc.). As such, as discussed below, it is important for trade/professional associations to take precautions relating to member meetings (e.g., board, committee, task force and membership meetings) and in the context of information exchanged through the association.

Common competition law compliance practices for trade/professional associations include adopting conduct of meeting guidelines for board of director and other association activities and implementing guidelines for industry surveys, benchmarking and other information exchange related exercises involving the association.

The potential penalties for violating section 45 of the Competition Act can be severe and include a fine in the discretion of the court (i.e., courts can establish fines with no legislatively prescribed upper limit), imprisonment for up to 14 years or both.

Private parties that have suffered actual loss or damage as a result of criminal conduct, including under the conspiracy provisions, may also commence private actions or class actions seeking damages.

Bid-Rigging
(Section 47)

The criminal bid-rigging provisions of the Competition Act can also be relevant to trade and professional association activities – for example, where an association’s members are engaged in competitive bids or tenders (e.g., in the construction and Information technology (IT) sectors, etc.), where an association attempts to regulate or control competitive tendering processes or a trade/professional association aids or abets criminal bid-rigging activities engaged in by its members.

Section 47 of the Competition Act sets out three criminal bid-rigging offences as follows: (i) an agreement to not submit a bid or tender, (ii) an agreement to withdraw a bid or tender already submitted; and (iii) submitting a bid or tender that is arrived at by agreement.

Like the conspiracy offences under section 45 of the Competition Act, bid-rigging is also “per se” illegal, in that no anti-competitive market effects need to be proven (though, also like conspiracy, all elements under section 47 need to be established on the criminal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

Some of the common types of bid-rigging that can violate section 47 of the Competition Act include:

1. “Cover”, “courtesy” or “complementary” bidding. Some firms submit bids that are too high to be accepted or with terms that are unacceptable to the buyer to protect an agreed upon low bidder.

2. Bid suppression. One or more bidders that would otherwise bid agree to refrain from bidding or withdraw a previously made bid.

3. Bid rotation. Parties submit bids but take turns being the low bidder according to a systematic or rotating basis.

4. Market division. Suppliers agree not to compete in designated geographic areas or for specified customers.

5. Subcontracting. Parties agree not to submit a bid or submit a losing bid are awarded subcontracts or supply agreements from the successful low bidder.

The penalties for violating the bid-rigging provisions of the Competition Act can be severe and include unlimited fines (i.e., criminal fines in the discretion of the court with no legislatively prescribed upper limit), imprisonment for up to 14 years, or both.

Abuse of Dominance
(Sections 78 and 79)

The abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act (sections 78 and 79) can also apply to trade and professional association activities, where an association or its members possesses market power in a market. The Bureau has relied on the abuse of dominance provisions in several of the leading trade association cases in the past, notably against Canadian real estate boards and associations (The Canadian Real Estate Association and the Toronto Real Estate Board).

Following significant amendments to the Competition Act that largely came into force on December 15, 2023, the substantive test to establish abuse of dominance was changed to establish several tests to prove abuse of dominance depending on the type of remedy sought.

While evaluating whether conduct constitutes an abuse of dominance under the Competition Act can be highly complex and require significant analysis, in general, these amendments significantly increase the potential risk for companies, trade/professional associations and other entities that engage in conduct intended to (or that actually result in) adversely impact competition. For more information, see: Abuse of Dominance.

Some of the types of trade/professional association activities that can potentially raise abuse of dominance issues include refusals to deal or supply, boycotts, member discipline and initiatives to exclude competitors or make it more difficult for them to compete.

The potential penalties for abuse of dominance under the Competition Act can be severe and include, among other things, AMPs of up to the greater of $25 million ($35 million for each subsequent order), three times the value of the benefit derived from the abusive conduct or, if the latter amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of the person’s annual worldwide gross revenues. For more information, see: Abuse of Dominance.

Price Maintenance
(Section 76)

The price maintenance section of the Competition Act (section 76) can also be relevant to trade and professional association activities.

In the past, price maintenance issues have arisen in the context of trade/professional associations where, among other things, association rules dictate (or attempt to dictate) the prices at which members sell products or refusals to deal based on some members’ low pricing policies.

The first type of price maintenance that is potentially relevant to trade/professional associations involves refusals to supply products (including services) or discriminate against other persons engaged in business based on their low pricing policy, where the conduct has an adverse effect on competition in a market.

The second type of price maintenance that can be relevant to trade/professional associations and their members involves inducing a supplier, by agreement, threat, promise or any like means, as a condition of doing business with the supplier, to refuse to supply to another person based on that other person’s low pricing policy.

Where all of the elements for price maintenance are established, the Competition Tribunal may make “remedial orders” for parties to cease the conduct based on applications commenced by the Bureau or private parties (with leave from the Tribunal). For more information, see: Price Maintenance.

Misleading Advertising
(Sections 52 and 74.01)

The misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act can also be relevant to trade/professional associations and their members. The general misleading advertising and related provisions of the Competition Act can apply to a trade/professional association both where it advertises its own products/services and where it helps its members advertise their own products/services (or restricts or attempts to restrict member advertising).

In general, for an advertising/marketing claim to be false or misleading in Canada under section 74.01 of the Competition Act, which is the general civil misleading advertising provision, it must be proven that: (i) it has been made to the public, (ii) to promote a product or business interest, (iii) that it is literally false or misleading (or with a false or misleading general impression) and (iv) that it is “material” (i.e., likely to influence an average consumer into buying a product or otherwise altering their conduct).

Criminal misleading advertising under section 52 of the Competition Act is substantially similar, but requires, in addition to all of the above elements, that it be proven that a claim was made with intent (i.e., made “knowingly or recklessly”).

Following amendments to the Competition Act that came into force on June 23, 2022, the maximum AMPs for deceptive marketing under section 74.01 increased as follows: (i) for individuals up to the greater of $750,000 ($1 million for each subsequent order) and three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct if that amount can be reasonably determined; and (ii) for corporations up to the greater of $10 million ($15 million for each subsequent order), three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct or, if the latter amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of the corporation’s annual worldwide gross revenues.

The penalties for criminal misleading advertising include fines of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year (on summary conviction) or fines in the discretion of the court and/or imprisonment for up to 14 years.

In addition to the general misleading advertising provisions under section 52 and 74.01, the Competition Act also contains a number of other criminal and civil provisions that either prohibit or regulate specific types of marketing practices. These include deceptive telemarketing, deceptive prize notices, drip pricing, double ticketing, multi-level marketing, pyramid selling schemes, performance claims, ordinary selling price (OSP) claims, endorsements/testimonials, bait and switch selling, the sale of products above the advertised price and promotional contests.

Based on the potential liability, it is important for trade/professional associations and their members to ensure that they do not engage in false or misleading representations in their business dealings and, for associations, that their rules and bylaws do not overly restrict legitimate pro-competitive advertising and marketing by members.

TRADE/PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES
THAT CAN RAISE COMPETITION LAW RISK

Some of the specific association activities that can potentially raise competition law concerns under the Competition Act include board and association meetings, information exchanges (i.e., exchanges of competitively sensitive information, such as relating to fees, customers, costs, bidding/tendering, etc.), association rules and bylaws (e.g., mandatory or suggested fee guidelines, advertising restrictions, etc.) and advertising or marketing restrictions (e.g., restrictions on advertising and marketing in codes of ethics, association by-laws and rules, etc.).

Board of Director and Association Meetings

Meetings are a normal and routine part of most trade/professional associations and can involve a variety of legitimate and pro-competitive activities. However, given that association meetings also in many cases involve the interaction of direct competitors, they can be a high-risk area for associations and their personnel.

This is because meetings between direct competitors can in some instances either result in conduct that actually violates the Competition Act (e.g., the formation of a criminal price-fixing or other agreement that contravenes the conspiracy offences under section 45 of the Competition Act) or can make it easier for the Bureau, a court or a private plaintiff to infer that anti-competitive conduct has occurred (e.g., use a meeting where competitively sensitive topics are discussed as evidence of an illegal conspiracy agreement).

Key competition law compliance step: Based on the potential risk, trade/professional associations should adopt conduct of meeting guidelines for the conduct of board, committee, task force and membership and other meetings where competitors gather. For more information, see: Association Compliance.

Information Exchanges

Information exchanges (e.g., the exchange of competitively sensitive information between competitors) is another key risk areas for trade/professional associations. Areas of potential competition law risk include the exchange of information relating to association members’ current/future pricing, market shares, costs, customers, markets, market shares and current/future business plans and strategic plans.

The reason the exchange or discussion of such information can potentially raise competition law issues is because, when shared with competitors, it can either potentially lead to the formation of an anti-competitive agreement (e.g., a price-fixing or other illegal agreement under section 45 of the Competition Act) or support the inference of an illegal anti-competitive agreement (e.g., the exchange of pricing information followed by a stabilization of price could infer that an anti-competitive conspiracy agreement between association members exists).

Key competition law compliance step: Based on the potential risk, trade/professional associations should adopt basic compliance guidelines for information exchanges between members. In this regard, some common measures include conduct of meeting guidelines (e.g. for board of director and other association meetings), compliance guidelines for industry surveys, benchmarking and other information exchange exercises and guidelines for particular exchanges of information between competing association members.

Association Rules and Bylaws

Trade and professional association rules, policies or bylaws can also, in some instances, raise competition law concerns under the Competition Act if they deal with competitively sensitive topics such as member fees/pricing, marketing, advertising or membership restrictions or member discipline.

The key potential issue is that where an association enacts or enforces rules on competitively sensitive topics (e.g., fee tariffs, advertising restrictions in a code of ethics, etc.), that the association may be either a party to or assisting in the formation of an illegal conspiracy agreement under section 45 of the Competition Act (criminal conspiracy).  Association rules and codes of conduct can also in some cases raise concerns under the price maintenance, abuse of dominance, misleading advertising or other provisions of the Competition Act. In this regard, the Bureau has commenced several cases against trade/professional association enacted rules under the 79 of the Competition Act (abuse of dominance).

In its Competitor Collaboration Guidelines, the Bureau’s position is that anti-competitive agreements involving industry trade associations (or association rules, policies or by-laws that prevent or lessen competition substantially, and are enacted and enforced by an association with the approval of members who are competitors) can lead to liability for an association as either a party to an offence or on the basis of aiding and abetting an illegal agreement under the Criminal Code.

Key competition law compliance step: Associations should review any rules, policies, bylaws or codes of conduct that touch on competitively sensitive topics for Competition Act compliance and potential risk, including rules relating to member fees/pricing, discounts, marketing and advertising and membership restrictions and discipline.

Advertising or Marketing Restrictions

The criminal and civil misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act can also be relevant to trade/professional association activities. They can apply where, for example, an association markets its own product or services and false or misleading claims are made or where an association conducts a marketing campaign on behalf of members that is false or misleading.

Key competition law compliance step: Trade/professional associations should ensure that their advertising and marketing activities comply with the Competition Act. Associations should also review any association rules, bylaws or codes of conduct regulating member advertising or marketing to reduce the likelihood that such rules themselves (i.e., association restrictions on member advertising or marketing) may violate the Competition Act.

********************

SERVICES AND CONTACT

We are a Toronto based competition and advertising law firm offering business and individual clients efficient and strategic advice in relation to competition/antitrust, advertising, Internet and new media law and contest law. We also offer competition and regulatory law compliance, education and policy services to companies, trade and professional associations and government agencies.

Our experience includes advising clients in Toronto, Canada and the United States on the application of Canadian competition and regulatory laws and we have worked on hundreds of domestic and cross-border competition, advertising and marketing, promotional contest (sweepstakes), conspiracy (cartel), abuse of dominance, compliance, refusal to deal and pricing and distribution matters. For more information about our competition and advertising law services see: competition law services.

To contact us about a potential legal matter, see: contact

For more information about our firm, visit our website: Competitionlawyer.ca

    buy-contest-form Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada

    buy-contest-form Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)

    WELCOME TO CANADIAN COMPETITION LAW! - OUR COMPETITION BLOG

    We are a Toronto based competition, advertising and regulatory law firm.

    We offer business, association, government and other clients in Toronto, Canada and internationally efficient and strategic advice in relation to Canadian competition, advertising, regulatory and new media laws. We also offer compliance, education and policy services.

    Our experience includes more than 20 years advising companies, trade and professional associations, governments and other clients in relation to competition, advertising and marketing, promotional contest, cartel, abuse of dominance, competition compliance, refusal to deal and pricing and distribution law matters.

    Our representative work includes filing and defending against Competition Bureau complaints, legal opinions and advice, competition, CASL and advertising compliance programs and strategy in competition and regulatory law matters.

    We have also written and helped develop many competition and advertising law related industry resources including compliance programs, acting as subject matter experts for online and in-person industry compliance courses and Steve Szentesi as Lawyer Editor for Practical Law Canada Competition.

    For more about us, visit our website: here.