Archive for the 'Competition and IP' Category
Earlier this month, on March 5, 2012, the CRTC finalized its Regulations under Canada’s pending federal anti-spam legislation (the “Anti-spam Act”).
Oxford University Press has published their March edition of the Journal of Competition Law & Economics, which includes articles on patent hold-up (Richard Epstein), buyer alliances (Ariel Ezrachi), search engine competition (Cedric Argenton) and private antitrust enforcement (Reza Rajabiun).
For more see:
March is Fraud Prevention Month. On March 5, 2012, the Competition Bureau issued the following tips for consumers to protect themselves against fraud:
Be vigilant when evaluating ads, whether for a job, a product or service offered online, over the phone or in print.
Before sending money or giving credit card or account details, be sure you understand what you are agreeing to. Do not feel pressured into paying for a product or service because of threats that your credit rating will be damaged.
Know who you are dealing with. Be wary of any unsolicited phone calls, emails, text messages or letters from unknown sources.
Search for the company, the individuals, the product or the offer on the Internet, and verify any contact and company details.
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
The American Bar Association (the Private Advertising Litigation, Consumer Protection and Privacy & Information Security Committees) is holding a teleseminar on February 29, 2012 entitled: “Hot Legal Issues in Social Media Marketing”.
From the ABA:
“Do you want to run a multinational promotion for tweens on Facebook to post videos of their experiences using your product? How about giving rewards to the “mayor” of your store locations on 4-Square? (Or maybe you are asking “What is that?”) Join an expert panel for a fast and furious hour and a half discussing current issues with marketing via social media and resources for your use in counseling through this minefield. The discussion will include new technologies (like 4-Square), marketing to kids, how CAN-SPAM and/or COPPA touch social media, the impact of FTC endorsement/testimonial guidelines, sweepstakes/contest laws, and more!”
On February 24, 2012, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart sent an open letter to Google to request additional information about Google’s new privacy policy and set out some concerns. The Commissioner’s letter follows a meeting between representatives of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Google (see: Letter to Google regarding privacy policy changes).
As has been widely reported, Google is taking steps to reduce the number of its privacy policies (currently over 70) relating to its many products to a single general privacy policy (while retaining some product-specific privacy policies) (see e.g.: Advertising Update: Google’s New Privacy Policy).
In making the announcement, the Commissioner said:
“I am writing further to Google’s recently announced plans to change its privacy policy, effective March 1, 2012, and further to a meeting between a representative of Google and officials from my Office. I am pleased to take this opportunity to provide you with some of our feedback and to request some additional information on certain practices.
As we understand it, Google has a number of goals that it wishes to achieve through this effort. Primarily, the company is aiming to reduce the number of privacy policies that currently exist (over 70) in relation to its many different products and services to one general privacy policy. In addition to that general policy, Google will still retain a small number of product-specific policies (e.g., for Google Wallet) where it believes that this makes sense or is otherwise required by law. The other goals are to create a simpler, more intuitive user experience across multiple Google products; improve search results; and make ads more relevant.
I would first like to acknowledge Google’s efforts to alert users to the new policy. Google has worked hard to simplify and streamline its privacy policy. We have long been calling for better, more user-friendly privacy policies and yours is a step in the right direction. We do, however, have a number of questions and concerns, as outlined below, that we would appreciate receiving a response from you on.”
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.
************
February 24, 2012
In December 2010 Canada’s new anti-spam legislation was passed (the “Anti-spam Act”) which will, when it comes into force, be one of the strictest anti-spam regimes in the world (see: Anti-spam Act). The Anti-spam Act will require express or implied consent for the sending of “commercial electronic messages” or “CEMs” and also impose form (i.e., disclosure) and unsubscribe requirements for CEMs.
Global Competition Review (GCR) has recently published new editions of three of its highly regarded “Getting the Deal Through” Volumes: Cartel Regulation 2012, Intellectual Property & Antitrust 2012 and Dominance 2012.
Bruce Lyons has posted a very interesting summary of the European Commission’s and U.S. DoJ’s approval of Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility on Competition Policy Blog (University of East Anglia)
From Competition Policy Blog:
“The European Commission and US DoJ have approved a (mainly) vertical acquisition of Motorola Mobility (MM) by Google because the specific transaction would not lessen competition. They did so with weary resignation that it is part of the patent arms race into which they will be drawn to adjudicate in the coming months and years. The underlying problem is that ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ (FRAND) royalty commitments are fit for purpose as part of standard setting agreements.”
For the complete post see:
Merger Approval of Google-Motorola Mobility and the Failure of FRAND
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
