Archive for the 'Competition Law' 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.
************
January 9, 2013
Last Friday, Industry Canada released highly anticipated (well at least in Internet, advertising and competition law circles) new draft regulations relating to the impending new Canadian anti-spam legislation (CASL). The new draft regulations, among other things, expand on some key terms in the legislation, clarify some exceptions existing in the legislation and add several new exceptions. These include sending commercial electronic messages to enforce a legal right, an exception for some types of referrals and for electronic communications sent within a company (or between companies in an existing business relationship).
January 9, 2013
The Competition Bureau has announced that the pre-merger notification size of transaction threshold for 2013 has been increased to $80 million (increased from the previous $77 million). The new size of transaction threshold will come into effect on publication in the Canada Gazette.
Mergers are notifiable in Canada where they involve the acquisition of an operating business in Canada, are one of five specified types of transactions set out in the Competition Act, exceed the prescribed thresholds under the Act and do not fall within any exception. With respect to pre-merger notification thresholds, a transaction must exceed both the “size of parties” and “size of transaction” thresholds.
January 6, 2013
The ABA’s Section of International Law has published its December, 2012 edition of “Hot Topics” in International Antitrust Law, with a short but very interesting discussion of the ongoing auto parts price-fixing investigation: “Lessons to Be Learned from the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Investigation of the Auto Parts Industry” (by J.M. Driscoll-Chippendale of Sheppard Mullin).
Overview:
“The U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division closed another record- breaking year of criminal enforcement in 2011-2012 based in part on its success in prosecuting both companies and individuals in what is known as the “auto parts investigation.”
The origins of the investigation were not particularly exceptional. On February 24, 2010, as most of the automotive industry focused on Toyota President Akio Toyoda’s congressional testimony about safety and recall issues, the FBI and the Division executed search warrants on the U.S. subsidiaries of three auto parts manufacturers—Denso, Yazaki International and Tokai Rika—for allegedly violating Section One of the Sherman Act. But these three raids spawned what has become the largest cartel investigation in the Division’s history with a rumored 64 parts currently under investigation.
The auto parts investigation has exposed a decade-old “keiretsu” of price-fixing and project allocation among some of the most venerable suppliers in Japan. To date, the Division has collected nearly $800 million in fines from its investigation with Yazaki alone paying $470 million. In addition to the corporate penalties, 11 individuals have been prosecuted and received sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years for their respective roles in the cartel.”
January 5, 2013
Industry Canada announced that it is expected that the Investment Canada Act review threshold for WTO investors or vendors will be Cdn. $344 million for 2013 (to be published in the Canada Gazette in early 2013). The threshold is indexed annually to reflect GDP growth. For more information about the Investment Canada Act and Canada’s foreign investment rules see: Investment Canada, national security, state-owned-enterprises (SOEs).
January 4, 2013
Earlier today, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued a new report summarizing its reviews of horizontal mergers between 1996 and 2011 (see: Horizontal Merger Investigation Data: Fiscal Years 1996-2011).
Overview:
“To promote transparency in merger enforcement, Federal Trade Commission staff1 reviewed the horizontal merger investigations that the agency conducted during fiscal years 1996 through 2011 and compiled relevant data for public release. The information presented in the attached tables has been extracted from staff memoranda written at the time of each investigation to advise the Commission regarding its enforcement decision. The staff has tabulated certain market structure information along with the Commission’s decision whether or not to seek relief in the specific markets investigated. In addition, for a subset of these investigations (those with three or fewer markets), the staff also tabulated the Commission’s enforcement decisions based on the presence or absence of ‘hot documents,’ ‘strong customer complaints,’ and ‘entry conditions’ as they were identified during the investigation.
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.
************
January 4, 2013
On January 4, 2013, Industry Canada issued revised draft regulations (Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations) for Canada’s upcoming anti-spam legislation (“CASL”). The revised regulations will be subject to comment until February 4, 2013 and generally clarify certain key CASL definitions and exceptions and add some new exceptions. Some of the key aspects of the new draft regulations include:
January 4, 2013
On January 4, 2013, Ontario’s consumer protection agency (the Ministry of Consumer Services) announced that it is planning to regulate debt settlement companies and issued proposed regulatory changes for public comments. In making the announcement, Ontario’s Minister of Consumer Services said:
“There is evidence of harmful practices used by some debt settlement companies and that is why our government is taking steps to protect consumers. We want to put a stop to abusive practices in the marketplace. Consumers should know their rights before they sign contracts and they should not make any payments until they get results.”
The new regulations, which according to the Ministry are intended to protect Ontario consumers from “exaggerated claims and abusive practices”, may include regulations to: (i) prevent debt settlement companies from charging up-front fees, (ii) limiting the fees debt settlement companies can charge consumers, (iii) require clear and transparent contracts (clear disclosure of key contract terms including fees, services and conditions) and (iv) require a ten-day cooling-off period.
The new rules would apply to for-profit and not-for-profit operators offering to arrange debt settlements for consumers and would be subject to existing Ontario consumer protection laws (e.g., the Collection Agencies Act and Consumer Protection Act). The planned new rules would also apply to traditional debt management plans offered through credit counseling services.
January 2, 2013
In an interesting case decided just before the holidays, which I fleetingly Tweeted, the Supreme Court of British Columbia denied an attempt by TELUS to block seasonal advertising by newcomer Mobilicity (see: TELUS Communications Company v. Mobilicity). Now that I’ve had my fill of Christmas turkey, I’ve had a chance to take a look at the decision which, though brief, includes a few interesting points.
In this case, TELUS’ challenge focused on three Mobilicity television advertising claims:
1. That Mobilicity’s competitors (including TELUS) make deceptive offers to customers, including offers of “unlimited plans” (when in fact their plans are limited to “after 6 PM evenings and weekends”);
2. That Mobilicity offers customers wireless services with “no contracts” (when Mobilicity does in fact require contracts); and
3. That Mobilicity offers “unlimited data” plans (when its plans are subject to a fair use policy that can limit speed).
TELUS sought an interlocutory injunction stopping Mobilicity from continuing with its claims through the end of December, arguing that the claims violated section 52 of the Competition Act (the criminal misleading advertising provision of the Act, which allows civil damages actions).
In denying TELUS’ injunction application, the Court reviewed the availability of injunctions under the Competition Act, the test for granting interlocutory injunctions and made several interesting comments relating to the interpretation of advertising for the misleading advertising provisions of the Act (and the balance between the need for accurate advertising and free speech).
As a threshold matter, the Court reiterated the BC Court of Appeal’s holding in earlier TELUS litigation in 2009 that the private action provision of the Competition Act, which speaks only of compensatory damages (i.e., the ability for private plaintiffs to recover actual loss or damage suffered) does not prevent the Supreme Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
