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.
************
On December 15, 2010 Canada’s new anti-spam legislation received Royal Assent, which will, when it comes into force, be one of the strictest anti-spam regimes in the world:
An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act (the “Anti-spam Act”).
Earlier this Fall, consultations on two sets of draft Regulations concluded and so the new law may come into effect later this Fall or in the Spring of 2012 (see coming into force information below).
On October 5, 2011 the Ottawa Business Journal, Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver Sun reported that Ontario Justice Ann Alder ruled that an Ottawa bid-rigging case in the technology sector can go to trial.
In this case, the Competition Bureau alleged that a number of companies, including TGP Technology, Spearhead Management, The Devon Group, Brainhunter, Nortak Software and Tipacimowin Technology, rigged bids in relation to IT contracts totaling about $67 million issued by the Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Transport and Public Works (see: Competition Bureau Announces Charges Against Companies Accused of Rigging Bids for Government of Canada Contracts and Backgrounder). Justice Ann Alder dismissed charges against several of the companies (Nortak Software and Tipacimowin Technology).
In making its original announcement in February, 2009, the Bureau said:
“The Bureau found evidence indicating that several IT services companies in the National Capital Region secretly coordinated their bids in an illegal scheme to defraud the government by winning and dividing contracts, while blocking out honest competitors.
The Bureau’s investigation found evidence of criminal activity in 10 competitive bidding processes from 2005, for contracts worth approximately $67 million. The contracts related to IT professional services provided to the Canada Border Services Agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, and Transport Canada.”
The British Columbia Real Estate Association will be hosting its 2011 Instructor Development Workshop in Whistler from September 22nd to 25th 2011, for instructors of REALTORS in British Columbia.
Steve Szentesi will be facilitating a competition law workshop (amendments to the Competition Act and developments in the first two years in force) on Sunday, September 25th.
For more information about the IDW workshop, event schedule and speakers see BCREA’s website:
BCREA – Instructor Development Workshop
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On September 7, 2011, the federal Competition Bureau announced that it had reached a settlement with Nivea’s Canadian distributor, Beiersdorf Canada Inc., relating to allegedly false or misleading performance claims in its advertising.
In particular, the Bureau took issue with claims that suggested that the use of skin cream could lead to weight loss. Under the terms of the consent agreement negotiated with the Bureau, Beiersdorf has agreed to pay an “administrative monetary penalty” or “AMP” of Cdn. $300,000 (“AMPs” are essentially civil fines), refund Canadian customers and remove its products from Canadian shelves.
In making its announcement, the Bureau said:
“A Bureau investigation determined that Beiersdorf made a number of deceptive claims about its “My Silhouette” product. The misleading representations were displayed on the package and on Nivea’s Web site. The representations stated that:
use of the product could lead to a “reduction of up to 3 centimetres on targeted body parts, such as thighs, hips, waist and stomach”;
My Silhouette “contains a highly effective natural Bio-Slim Complex for a slimmer looking and more defined silhouette”; and
My Silhouette “combines high performance active ingredients for a dual effect of slimming & reshaping.”
Beiersdorf’s representations also created the misleading impression that use of the product could make the skin more toned and elastic.
““Beiersdorf misled consumers by claiming a person could slim down by simply applying a skin cream,”” said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ““Unfortunately, consumers who purchased My Silhouette learned the hard way that there was no such easy fix.””
Under the terms of the consent agreement registered with the Competition Tribunal today, Beiersdorf is also required to publish a corrective notice on Nivea’s Canadian Web site and in major Canadian newspapers, and to pay $80,000 to cover costs associated with the Bureau’s investigation.”
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has announced that it has filed a $450 million internet fraud civil suit against an Alberta online operator.
According to the FTC, Jesse Willms, an online operator with ten marketing companies, has:
“… raked in more than $450 million from consumers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand by luring them into ‘free’ or ‘risk-free’ offers, and then charging them for products and services they did not want or agree to purchase. … The defendants used the lure of a ‘free’ offer to open an illegal pipeline to consumers’ credit card and bank accounts.” See: FTC Charges Online Marketers with Scamming Consumers out of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars with “Free” Trial Offers.
The FTC’s complaint alleges, among other things, that Willms and the companies he controls:
– Used deceptive tactics in offering “free trials” for various online products, including acai berry weight-loss pills, teeth whiteners and health supplements.
– Obtained consumers’ credit or debit card account numbers, by enticing them with “bogus ‘free’ or ‘risk-free’ trial offers that supposedly required only small shipping and handling fees, and also promised phony ‘bonus’ offers just for signing up” (and were charged for trial and bonus products plus recurring monthly fees).
– Made false claims about the total cost of products, recurring charges and the availability of refunds.
– Made false weight loss and cancer cure claims in relation to products.
– Provided merchant banks with false or misleading information to acquire and maintain credit and debit card processing services from the banks in light of “mounting chargeback rates and consumer complaints.”
– Concealed important terms and conditions relating to product sales.
According to the FTC, it worked closely with Canadian law enforcement officials, including the federal Competition Bureau, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Alberta Partnership Against Cross Border Fraud and the Edmonton Better Business Bureau.
In Canada, the federal Competition Act contains both civil and criminal provisions dealing with false or misleading representations and also governs a variety of specific forms of marketing conduct including “ordinary selling price” claims, selling above an advertised price, deceptive telemarketing, promotional contests and performance claims.
Generally speaking, the civil misleading advertising provisions of the Act prohibit representations to the public, for the purpose of promoting a product or business interest, that are false or misleading in a material respect. The criminal provisions, which are substantially similar, prohibit false or misleading representations that are made intentionally (i.e., knowingly or recklessly).
Some of the types of claims that have been of concern for Canadian courts and the Competition Bureau in the past include literally false claims, omitting key information relating to the price or terms of sale of products and false claims regarding the performance of products (product performance claims must be supported by “adequate and proper” tests before any claim is made).
As with the FTC claims, the Competition Bureau has also pursued companies for inaccurate use of the term “free” in connection with marketing claims (see: False or Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices and Misleading Advertising Guidelines) and has also issued specific guidelines setting out its enforcement position for online marketing and advertising (see: Application of the Competition Act to Representations on the Internet).
As a result of amendments to the Act in 2009, it is also not necessary to show that a misleading claim was made to Canadian consumers or was made in a publicly accessible place. These changes were recently made to address perceived gaps in the Act and to specifically address misleading claims made in Canada targeting foreign consumers (as is alleged in this FTC case, albeit from a U.S. enforcement perspective) and claims originating in places without direct consumer contact (e.g., in the context of online marketing operations).
For copies of the FTC’s complaint and motion for injunction see:
Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
For Jessie Willms’ news release in reply to the FTC’s allegations see:
_________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had filed a lawsuit to block H&R Block Inc. from acquiring TaxAct based on concerns that the proposed transaction would further consolidate the “growing U.S. digital do-it-yourself tax preparation software market” from 3 to 2 and eliminate a maverick (TaxAct).
In making the announcement, the U.S. DoJ said:
“’The combination of H&R Block and TaxACT would likely lead to millions of American taxpayers paying higher prices for digital do-it-yourself tax preparation products,’ said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. ‘In addition, TaxACT has aggressively competed in the digital do-it-yourself tax preparation market with innovations such as free federal filing. If this merger is allowed to proceed, that type of innovation will be lost.’
…
According to the department’s complaint, H&R Block’s acquisition of 2SS Holdings would eliminate a company that has aggressively competed with H&R Block and disrupted the U.S. digital do-it-yourself tax preparation market through low pricing and product innovation. By ending the head-to-head competition between TaxACT and H&R Block, American taxpayers would be left with only two major digital do-it-yourself tax preparation providers. This would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and reduced innovation. In addition, by taking control of the TaxACT business, which has been a maverick in the market, it would be easier for H&R Block to coordinate on prices, quality, and other business decisions with the other remaining industry leader – Mountain View, Calif.-based Intuit, which makes personal finance programs such as Quicken and TurboTax – the department said.”
This case is interesting in that in addition to considering market shares and existing remaining competition (according to the DoJ, the top three players including H&R Block and TaxAct account for about 90% of the relevant market), the DoJ is basing its challenge on the fact that in its view TaxAct is also a maverick. Like the U.S., in Canada whether a merging party is a maverick can also be a relevant factor for considering whether competition will be substantially lessened post-merger (though, not surprisingly, whether a party is a maverick can be the subject of considerable debate and maverick cases are relatively rare). In this regard, the Competition Bureau states in its Merger Enforcement Guidelines:
“Pre-merger, effective coordination may be constrained by the activities of a particularly vigorous and effective competitor (a ‘maverick’). An acquisition of a maverick may remove this constraint on coordination by reducing incentives to behave in an aggressive manner. Such an acquisition increases the likelihood that coordinated behaviour will be effective.”
This case is also interesting, if only for being a cautionary tale, in that the DoJ is basing its challenge of the proposed transaction in part on the merging parties’ own internal documents. According to the DoJ, these include statements from H&R Block’s internal emails and presentations that a primary benefit of acquiring TaxAct is “elimination of a competitor” and the “strategic opportunities” include to “eliminate the brand to regain control of industry pricing and further price erosion”.
Given that “4c documents” are a routine and required part of merger notification in the U.S., and that strategic planning documents are also now required for merger notification filings in Canada regardless of complexity (see Notifiable Transactions Regulations, 16(1)(d)),[1] merging parties are well advised to seek competition/antitrust counsel early in the planning stages of a proposed transaction to avoid similar potential issues from arising.
For the complete DoJ news release see: Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Stop H&R Block Inc. From Buying TaxAct.
For Canada’s merger control rules see: Competition Act, Part IX – Notifiable Transactions and Notifiable Transactions Regulations.
For an overview of merger control in Canada see: Merger Control and Investment Canada.
[1] Subparagraph 16(1)(d) of the Notifiable Transactions Regulations requires that parties to a transaction, and their affiliates, file “all studies, surveys, analyses and reports that were prepared or received by an officer or director of the corporation … for the purpose of evaluating or analysing the proposed transaction with respect to market shares, competition, competitors, markets, potential for sales growth or expansion into new products or geographic regions …” This requirement to file strategic planning documents as part of a pre-merger notification filing was recently added to the Canadian Notifiable Transactions Regulations as part of amendments to the Competition Act in 2009, and further aligns Canadian merger control rules with that in the U.S. under the HSR Act (the existing 4c documents requirement).
_________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
May 8, 2011
The Competition Bureau has announced that Kason Industries Inc. plead guilty for its part in a customer allocation conspiracy and was fined $250,000 by the Federal Court of Canada.
January 26, 2011
The Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) has announced today that it has applied to the federal Competition Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for a Tribunal order to dissolve (i.e., unwind) CCS Corporation’s acquisition of Complete Environmental Inc., owner of the proposed Babkirk Secure Landfill in Northeastern British Columbia (see: Competition Bureau Challenges BC Landfill Merger).
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
