Archive for the 'Amendments' Category
CANADIAN CASL (ANTI-SPAM LAW) PRECEDENTS
Do you need a precedent or checklist
to comply with CASL (Canadian anti-spam law)?
We offer Canadian anti-spam law (CASL) precedents and checklists to help electronic marketers comply with CASL. These include checklists and precedents for express consent requests (including on behalf of third parties), sender identification information, unsubscribe mechanisms, business related exemptions and types of implied consent and documenting consent and scrubbing distribution lists. We also offer a CASL corporate compliance program. For more information or to order, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents/Forms. If you would like to discuss CASL legal advice or for other advertising or marketing in Canada, including contests/sweepstakes, contact us: contact.
************
September 13, 2012
The Canadian Corporate Counsel Association recently published a new article on Canada’s impending (but when?) new anti-spam legislation, entitled Canada’s Anti-spam Law: Filtering Relationships (by Yves Faguy).
Recently, on August 4, 2012, new Enhanced Labellilng for Food Allergen Regulations under the federal Food and Drugs Act came into force. These Regulations increase the labelling requirements for prepackaged foods sold in Canada containing specific types of priority allergens, gluten sources and added sulphites (see: Canada’s new food allergen labelling regulations came into force).
Health Canada has also issued a Food Allergen Precaution Statement Policy, which recommends that food manufacturers and importers voluntarily make declarations on the labels of prepackaged foods of the possible inadvertent presence of allergens.
On September 11, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that it had laid charges against Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. and its subsidiary, BFI Canada Inc. for allegations of breaches of a consent agreement following the merger in 2012 of IESI-BFC Ltd. and Waste Services Inc.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“’Today’s announcement sends a strong signal to businesses that breaching a Consent Agreement with the Competition Bureau is an extremely serious matter and will not be tolerated’, said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘Consent Agreements are an essential tool to preserve competition and protect consumers from potential anti-competitive harm. Companies who violate the terms of such agreements must be held to account.’”
This announcement is another indication both of the Bureau’s more aggressive enforcement of the Competition Act generally and signals the Bureau’s ongoing appetite to take steps to ensure that settlement agreements under the Act are complied with. In this regard, this case is the third recently announced case in which the Bureau has commenced enforcement steps, including criminal enforcement, relating to alleged breaches of consent agreements (see also: Bureau Seeks Criminal Penalties in Alleged Misleading Advertising and Breach of Consent Agreement Case and Commissioner of Competition Speech Highlights Enhanced Competition Bureau Enforcement).
This case also appears to indicate that the Bureau is making good on its commitments to both monitor the marketplace generally for conduct that potentially violates the Competition Act and for potential violations of consent agreements negotiated with parties in misleading advertising, merger and other cases.
For example in one recent speech, the Commissioner said that the Bureau will “continue to be vigilant in monitoring consent agreements” and would not “hesitate to take further enforcement action as warranted”. Bureau personnel have also indicated in other recent public remarks that they continue to periodically monitor online advertising and marketing for Competition Act compliance and business media for mergers that, while not notifiable, may raise competition concerns.
I am pleased to be speaking at the Canadian Bar Association’s and Canadian Corporate Counsel Association’s upcoming CBA Canadian Legal Conference in Vancouver on a panel on August 13th: “What In-house Counsel Need to Know About Recent Competition Law Developments”. From the Canadian Bar Association and Canadian Corporate Counsel Association (CCCA):
“Canada’s competition and foreign investment laws are being enforced more vigorously than ever. The Competition Bureau has broad powers allowing them to investigate conduct that might have an anti-competitive impact on the Canadian marketplace, and investigations can involve high-stakes consequences for companies including public stigma, civil or criminal penalties, or unneeded complications arising in the middle of a strategic merger. Private and class actions are also increasingly prevalent in Canada. Hear about recent trends and learn practical tips for spotting issues and minimizing potential liability from experienced in-house and external counsel who will discuss compliance, criminal developments, private actions, mergers and advertising and marketing law developments.”
My presentation will be on recent misleading advertising law developments and trends (“Misleading Advertising Trends & Tips”), with a PowerPoint presentation and paper highlighting recent cases including Rogers, Bell, Yellow Pages, Richard v. Time and best practices for in-house counsel.
On August 7, 2012, hearings in the landmark Canadian misleading advertising case Commissioner of Competition v. Rogers Communications Inc. began.
The case, the first constitutional test of increased “administrative monetary penalties” or “AMPs” under the Competition Act (the “Act”) for misleading advertising, promises to be a bit of a battle between the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) and Rogers in relation to a few key aspects of Canadian advertising law.
The case relates to certain performance claims made by Rogers in connection with its new cell phone brand Chatr, the effectiveness of disclaimers (like other recent high-profile Canadian advertising cases) and, perhaps the issue most likely to capture public attention, whether the potentially significant civil penalties now possible for misleading advertising are constitutional.
The Bureau is principally taking aim at two claims made by Rogers: that its (at the time) new Chatr cell phone brand had “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers” and that customers had “no worries about dropped calls”. According to the Bureau these claims, made to compete with new wireless entrants Mobilicity, Public Mobile and Wind Mobile, were either literally false in some cases (in markets where new entrant cell phone companies’ dropped call rates were superior to Rogers) or, where true, misleading (by conveying the general impression of appreciably lower dropped call rates, when any differences were in reality “imperceptible” to consumers).
The Bureau has also taken the position that certain disclaimers used by Rogers were ineffective in altering the general impression of its performance claims, including the view that some technical statements made by Rogers in disclaimers would be meaningless to the average consumer. For example, some Rogers disclaimers included statements such as: “Based on: cell site density; quality of indoor and underground reception; and seamless call transition when moving out of zone”.
I am pleased to be delivering the Competition Law and REALTORS course for the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver on August 29, 2012. This course has been designed by the Alliance for Canadian Real Estate Education (ACRE) in conjunction with The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA).
From ACRE:
“Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters was designed by ACRE with the assistance of CREA to help Canadian REALTORS® understand and comply with Canadian competition law. While Canadian competition law applies to all real estate professionals, this course was designed specifically for REALTORS®. This course provides an overview in plain language of Canadian competition law and practical compliance guidelines to assist REALTORS® in complying with Canadian competition law and a number of illustrative case studies.”
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
The Malaysian Competition Commission (MCC) has set out its position on information exchanges in the association context, in relation to information exchanges involving the Malaysian Automotive Association (MAA).
According to the MCC, it had previously advised the MAA as to why and how the dissemination of disaggregated information to MAA members could infringe Malaysian competition law.
In her announcement, the MCC’s chief executive officer pointed to potential risks of the formation of horizontal or vertical agreements that may raise competition concerns, principally dampening competitive rivalry among them:
“The detailed information exchanged and shared by the MAA’s members may facilitate them to coordinate their prices and such information could facilitate members to plan their marketing strategy by allocating territories or adjusting their production. This indirectly has the consequence of discouraging members from competing fairly and more effectively against one another.”
The potential issues associated with information exchanges between competitors is not, of course, unique to Malaysia, nor are the types of commonsense precautions trade and professional associations can take to reduce competition/antitrust issues from arising.
In Canada, like many other jurisdictions, the potential risk of exchanging competitively sensitive information in un-aggregated form (e.g., price, cost, market, market share, customer or supplier information) is generally twofold: first, exchanging such information can lead to agreements that violate section 45 of the Competition Act (the criminal conspiracy provision, which prohibits price-fixing, market allocation/division and output/supply restriction agreements between competitors); and second, that information exchanges can be used as evidence by the Competition Bureau, a court or private plaintiff to infer the existence of an agreement.
Also, since the passing of Canada’s relatively new civil agreements provision (section 90.1), information exchanges can also now in theory be challenged on a stand-alone basis (i.e., apart from, for example, a price-fixing agreement) where they prevent or lessen competition substantially (or as well raise issues in relation to otherwise legitimate vertical agreements and arrangements).
For more information about information exchanges and competition law in Canada, and steps associations can take to minimize competition risk, see:
Associations and Competition Law
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On June 21, 2012 the Competition Bureau announced that, together with the Unité permanente anticorruption (UPAC) in Quebec, it has laid 77 charges against 11 individuals and 9 companies in relation to a broad range of allegations that include corruption in municipal affairs, breach of trust, influencing municipal officers, fraud upon the government, production and use of counterfeit documents, accepting reward, advance or benefit, extortion and conspiracy.
With respect to allegations of competition law violations, the Bureau has announced that bid-rigging charges were also laid under section 47 of the Competition Act.
According to the Bureau, this newly announced case is the result of an investigation that ran for more than two years, which uncovered “evidence of a sophisticated collusion scheme giving preferential treatment to a group of contractors to obtain municipal contracts, mainly for infrastructure projects in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and surrounding areas.”
Under section 45 of the Competition Act (the criminal conspiracy offences of the Act) three types of agreements between competitors are “per se” illegal (i.e., with no adverse competitive impacts required to be proven): (i) price-fixing agreements (agreements to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of a product or service), (ii) market allocation/division agreements (agreements to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of a product) and (iii) output/supply restriction agreements (agreements to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of a product). Other types of agreements between competitors are potentially subject to review under a second and separate non-criminal reviewable matters agreement provision (section 90.1).
In addition to these conspiracy offences, the Competition Act (somewhat in contrast to, for example, the U.S. where bid-rigging is challenged under Section 1 of the Sherman Act together with other types of cartels, such as price-fixing or market division arrangements) also contains stand-alone bid-rigging offences (under section 47 of the Act).
In this regard, section 47 of the Act makes it a criminal offence to: (i) agree to not submit a bid or tender, (ii) agree to withdraw a bid or tender already submitted (recently added to the Act as a result of the 2009 amendments) or (iii) submit a bid or tender that is arrived at by agreement. Bid-rigging in Canada is also, like the amended section 45, ”per se” illegal, in that no anti-competitive effects on a relevant market (or markets) need to be established in order to make out an offence (though all of the elements need to be established on the standard criminal burden of proof – i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt).
Some common types of coordinated bidding activities that can contravene the criminal bid-rigging provisions of the Act include: “cover”, “courtesy” or “complementary” bidding (some firms submit bids that are too high to be accepted, or with terms that are unacceptable to the party calling for bids, to protect an agreed upon low bidder); “bid suppression” (one or more bidders that would otherwise bid agree to refrain from bidding or withdraw a previously made bid); “bid rotation” (all parties submit bids but take turns being the low bidder according to a systematic or rotating basis); “market division” (suppliers agree not to compete in designated geographic areas or for specified customers); and “subcontracting” (parties that agree not to submit a bid, or submit a losing bid, are awarded subcontracts or supply agreements from the successful low bidder. Trade association activities involving information exchanges about upcoming or proposed tender opportunities, or that facilitate coordination of bids and tenders, can also raise competition law concerns.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
