Archive for the 'News' Category
CANADIAN CONTEST RULES/PRECEDENTS
Do you need contest rules and forms for a Canadian contest/sweepstakes? I offer a selection of Canadian contest rules and forms for random draw, skill and other common types of Canadian contests (i.e., contest precedents and forms). For more information see Canadian Contest Forms/Precedents.
____________________
The Canadian Institute is hosting an upcoming contest conference entitled “Managing Legal Risks in Running Online Contests” on June 21-22 2012 in Toronto. Their conference will include discussions on topics that include minimizing the risks of operating online contests, online voting contests, operating Facebook and Twitter contests, mobile contests and mitigating risk when online contests go wrong.
In March, 2009, sweeping amendments to the Competition Act came into force that included, among many other things, the introduction for the first time in Canada of monetary penalties for abuse of dominance (“administrative monetary penalties” or “AMPs”). Under Canada’s amended section 79, the Competition Tribunal may now order AMPs of up to $10 million ($15 million for subsequent orders).
Since that time, one contested abuse case has proceeded to the Competition Tribunal (the Bureau’s ongoing challenge against The Toronto Real Estate Board, in which the Bureau is seeking only remedial remedies not AMPs) and two new versions of the Bureau’s Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines have been issued for comment (the current draft version of which, while setting out when the Tribunal may order AMPs in abuse cases, provides no guidance as to when the Bureau will seek them).
On May 15, 2012, the C.D. Howe Institute’s Competition Policy Council issued a report, the result of its third meeting on May 7, 2012, calling for the Bureau to clarify its position as to when it will seek AMPs in abuse cases. (Unlike some provisions of the Act, in Canada the Bureau has exclusive jurisdiction to bring and prosecute abuse cases, which are heard before the federal Competition Tribunal.)
In issuing the Report, the C.D. Howe Institute’s Council said:
“The Competition Bureau should clarify how it will apply its powers under the Competition Act in seeking administrative monetary penalties for abuse of dominance, according to a consensus of the C.D. Howe Institute’s Competition Policy Council, which held its third meeting on May 7, 2012. …
There was a range of views among the Council members about whether AMPs for abuse of dominance are ever appropriate. Some members contended that AMPs are appropriate as a deterrence mechanism. Others expressed the view that the possibility of a firm’s being subject to AMPs would chill efficient arrangements. There was unanimity, however, on the point that the risks of over-deterrence associated with AMPs are real, and that it would be appropriate to know how the Bureau plans to approach the issue of AMPs in particular cases. Accordingly, the Council’s key recommendation is that the Competition Bureau issue guidance and explain the basis on which it will assess the AMPs it seeks.”
Some of the issues discussed in the Council’s Report include the constitutionality of AMPs (as yet to be determined) and a more reticent Bureau in terms of its abuse of dominance enforcement positions.
With respect to the latter, the Commissioner of Competition has indicated in recent public remarks that the markedly shorter draft Abuse Guidelines currently subject to public comments is an effort to let the Competition Tribunal, not the Bureau, decide where the boundaries of section 79 lie (which provides little comfort to firms given that there have only been about ten contested abuse cases since the modern Competition Act was introduced in 1986).
For a copy of the C.D. Howe Institute’s news release and Report see:
The following are a few upcoming competition/antitrust law conferences:
American Bar Association Financial Services and Competition (New York: June 7, 2012): Financial Services and Competition.
13th annual Civil Liberties and Competition Policy conference (Washington: June 21, 2012): Civil Liberties and Competition Policy.
Georgetown Law 6th Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium (Washington: September 19, 2012). Canada’s Commissioner of Competition will be speaking at this conference: Antitrust Enforcement Symposium.
39th Fordham Conference (New York – September 20-21, 2012): Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy.
The following are a few competition and regulatory law developments that caught my eye today:
The Saskatchewan Government issued a review report on the proposed Glencore/Viterra transaction calling for, among other things, conditions to ensure compliance with Glencore’s Investment Canada Act commitments and a review of potential competition concerns in the retail (i.e., crop input) markets: Government Releases Review of Glencore Acquisition of Viterra
The OECD issued a new Procedural Fairness and Transparency Report, which includes recent Competition Bureau transparency initiatives: Procedural Fairness and Transparency – Key Points 2012
The International Trade Minister delivered remarks to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (BC) about the new Canada-EU trade agreement: International Trade Minister Ed Fast Highlights Benefits of Canada-EU Trade Agreement to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has commented on competition and infrastructure in Canada to supply Chinese energy needs: Canada: Competing for China’s energy needs
The CRTC’s Executive Director of Broadcasting addressed innovation and competition in local radio and television markets in BC: Speech to the 65th annual conference of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters
The Competition Bureau issued its April Monthly Merger Review Report: Merger Review Report
On May 11, 2012, the Saskatchewan Government published a review report on the proposed Glencore/Viterra transaction. In issuing the report, Saskatchewan’s Agriculture Minister called for conditions to “hold Glencore” to its Investment Canada Act commitments and also indicated that one competition concern included competitive effects relating to Agrium and the farm inputs (i.e., retail) markets.
Saskatchewan is calling for the following, among other things, as part of Investment Canada Act approval: Regina as Glencore’s North American headquarters, maintaining current levels of employment, a five year increase in capital investment of C $100 million and no adverse competitive effects in the farm input (i.e., retail) markets (competition is one of the relevant net benefit to Canada factors under section 20 of the Investment Canada Act).
For the Saskatchewan Government’s news release and report see:
Review of the Proposed Glencore Acquisition of Viterra and Related Transactions
The OECD has published a new booklet (Procedural Fairness and Transparency – Key Points 2012) that summarizes three roundtable discussions on transparency and procedural fairness in 2010 and 2011, as part of the OECD’s Competition Committee’s Working Party No. 3. The OECD’s booklet summarizes 82 written submissions, eight presentations by various national delegations and commentary from competition law practitioners and experts.
The OECD’s booklet also includes discussions of recent transparency related initiatives by the Canadian Competition Bureau including new compliance, merger and Immunity Program related guidelines; the Bureau’s transparency self-assessment (began in 2010, which has resulted in, among other things, its new monthly Merger Registry and merger statements); areas of improvement with respect to transparency (including in relation to merger review and the review of the Bureau’s consent agreement process); and the Bureau’s policies relating to the exchange of confidential information with international agencies.
For a copy of the OECD booklet see:
The Federal Government has published the Industry Minister’s remarks at the Bloomberg Canada Economic Summit in Toronto on May 8, 2012. Some of the highlights of the Minister’s speech include Federal economic initiatives over the past six years, foreign investment in Canada (according to the Minister, 95 new foreign businesses and expansion projects), trade and tariff elimination initiatives, Telecommunication Act amendments to lift foreign ownership restrictions for small telecom companies and recently tabled proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act (Bill C-38) aimed at increasing transparency in the Canadian foreign investment review process.
For the Minister’s remarks and related news release see:
The following are a few advertising and regulatory law developments that caught my eye today:
The CRTC has published final regulations to regulate loud television commercials: CRTC moves a step closer to making loud TV ads a thing of the past. Slaw.ca posted an interesting note by David Canton on the use of social media and Facebook for operating online contests: Commercial Users of Social Media Need to Check Terms of Use. The U.S. FTC published tips to protect information and computers from online scammers: Secure Your Computer. The Minister of Public Safety addressed trade, security and competition in remarks at the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance Conference: Speaking Notes for the Honourable Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety at the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance Conference. The Globe published an interesting article on fraudulent advertising and phishing in relation to bank log-in websites: Phishing, other malicious websites soar in Canada.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
