Archive for the 'Publications' Category
January 29, 2013
The Canadian Bar Association’s Anti-Corruption Team (CBA-ACT), which is a joint committee composed of members of the Competition, Business and International sections of the CBA, as well as the CCCA, has launched a new Anti-Corruption website. The new site includes, among other things, links to global anti-corruption legislation, relevant case law (e.g., the recent Griffiths Energy case and Niko Resources) and links to a variety of international resources.
From the CBA:
“The CBA’s Anti-Corruption Team (CBA-ACT) is a joint committee comprised of members from the International, Business, and Competition law sections as well as CCCA. The CBA-ACT was established to monitor and respond to all matters involving corrupt practices and to provide an educational resource centre for Canadian lawyers. Building on over a decade of CBA work in the area of anti-corruption and anti-bribery, the CBA-ACT focuses on providing Canadian lawyers with a place to learn about anti-corruption legislation, case law, and compliance requirements. The CBA-ACT takes a proactive advocacy role and emphasizes the implementation and enforcement of corruption legislation, including the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the U.K.’s Bribery Act, and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The team will work to advocate strategies and policy designed to help lawyers prevent and eradicate corruption. The CBA-ACT will identify issues in corruption both nationally and internationally and will provide lawyers in Canada with tools to help their clients.”
January 28, 2013
I am pleased to announce the launch of my new website: Canadian Contest & Promotions Law (www.contestlawyer.ca). The new website includes overviews of key aspects of running promotional contests in Canada (including Competition Bureau policies, application of the federal Competition Act and Criminal Code and Canadian advertising law issues) and frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Canadian contest/sweepstakes laws, guidelines and enforcement.
____________________
Do you need contest rules/precedents
for a Canadian contest?
We offer many types of Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents and forms (i.e., Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents to run common types of contests in Canada). These include precedents for random draw contests (i.e., where winners are chosen by random draw), skill contests (e.g., essay, photo or other types of contests where entrants submit content that is judged to enter the contest or for additional entries), trip contests and more. Also available are individual Canadian contest/sweepstakes precedents, including short rules (“mini-rules”), long rules, winner releases and a Canadian contest law checklist. For more information or to order, see: Canadian Contest Law Forms/Precedents. If you would like to discuss legal advice in relation to your contest or other promotion, contact us: Contact.
January 28, 2013
Earlier today, the CRTC published its anticipated draft Wireless Code, which will be subject to public comments until February 15, 2013 (see: Help Develop a Wireless Code). According to the CRTC, it has received 3,500 written comments and about 600 online comments, which were reviewed in preparing the new draft Code. This second phase of public comments will also include a public hearing to be held from February 11th to 15th in Gatineau.
In making the announcement CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais said:
“I would like to thank Canadians for having shared their candid views on wireless services. … The draft code is still very much a work in progress and intended to encourage more discussion. We are inviting Canadians to participate by telling us what they think of the working document. Once finalized, the wireless code will enable them to make informed decisions in a competitive marketplace.”
The draft Code has arisen as a result of growing consumer frustration with wireless contracts, terms of service, fees and disclosure, as well as a desire by industry members to have a single federal code, rather than multiple provincial regimes.
The draft Code addresses major topics including enforcement, contracts, fees (clarity of advertised prices, additional fees, etc.), repairs, unlocking devices and loss/theft. Some of the aspects of the new draft Code that caught my eye, which according to the CRTC is only “intended to stimulate debate and does not constitute a preliminary view” by the CRTC, include:
1. Conflict provisions benefiting consumers (i.e., contemplating that the new Code will co-exist with existing provincial legislation with consumers having the benefit of the most consumer-favorable provisions).
2. Cancellation rights for contracts agreed to by phone or online (allowing consumers to cancel agreements without penalties where they have not either received a copy of the contract or written terms conflict with phone/online sales terms).
3. Penalties that may include explanations/apologies for consumers, undertakings to take steps (or stop conduct) and monetary penalties of up to $5,000.
January 26, 2013
Steve Szentesi
Kevin Wright (Davis LLP)
(with contributions by Jonathan Gilhen – Davis LLP)
Extract from a chapter to be published in CLEBC’s
Annual Review of Law & Practice – 2013
____________________
2012 was a busy year for Canadian competition and foreign investment law, with significant developments in all major areas including misleading advertising, mergers, abuse of dominance, criminal matters (including cartels, bid-rigging and deceptive marketing) and private actions. The following is an overview of some of the key abuse of dominance, private action and other competition developments in 2012.
Abuse of Dominance
Commissioner of Competition v. The Toronto Real Estate Board
In Commissioner of Competition v. The Toronto Real Estate Board, the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) commenced an abuse of dominance application against The Toronto Real Estate Board (“TREB”), Canada’s largest real estate board. The Bureau is alleging that TREB is dominant in the residential real estate services market in the Greater Toronto Area (“GTA”), certain TREB membership rules governing the use of its multiple listing service or “MLS®” data are anti-competitive and that competition has been substantially lessened in the relevant market (residential real estate services in the GTA).
In particular, the Bureau’s challenge involves TREB membership rules governing the use of its MLS® data that the Bureau argues restrict or prevent members from offering various innovative new services over the Internet, such as “virtual office websites” or “VOWs” that would allow potential clients to conduct their own property searches on brokers’ password protected websites without the assistance or involvement of brokers. The Bureau is arguing that TREB’s restrictions on using its MLS® data for VOWs has prevented the development of more efficient and cost effective business models by forcing existing members to use traditional broker models and prevented members from joining TREB to launch new Internet based services.
TREB in turn has argued that the rules for the use of its MLS® system are a legitimate exercise of intellectual property rights, its policies do not substantially prevent or lessen competition, that some proposed uses of its data raise privacy concerns and that it cannot be dominant in a market in which it does not participate (as a trade association it does not itself provide any real estate services).
Like the Bureau’s 2009 abuse of dominance challenge against The Canadian Real Estate Association, this case also focuses on membership rules and access to the MLS® system, and more specifically TREB’s ability to exclude and discipline non-compliant members by foreclosing access to its MLS® data. This case was ongoing at the time of writing.
New Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines
In September 2012, the Bureau issued new Abuse of Dominance Guidelines (“Abuse Guidelines”) that set out its enforcement policy for the civil abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act (the “Act”) (sections 78 and 79). The Bureau’s new Abuse Guidelines replace its former 2001 guidelines and several sector- and conduct-specific guidelines and bulletins relating to the airline, grocery and telecommunications industries and predatory pricing.
The new Abuse Guidelines are substantially shorter with significantly less analysis and fewer examples than the Bureau’s previous guidelines. In general, they also provide less comfort for firms regarding several key concepts, notably potential investigation risk in the absence of market power or conduct that is not exclusionary. They also introduce some new and somewhat controversial positions by the Bureau. Some key aspects of the new Abuse Guidelines include:
Preserving market share thresholds with no bright line safe harbors. As before, the new Abuse Guidelines contain no bright-line market share safe harbours below which the Bureau may not commence enforcement (for single firm dominance, a market share of less than 35% will generally not prompt further examination; between 35% and 50% will prompt further examination if a firm appears likely to increase its share through anti-competitive acts; and more than 50% will generally prompt further examination).
Expanding when the Bureau may investigate allegations of abuse. The new Abuse Guidelines state that the Bureau may investigate allegations of abuse of dominance in some instances even where a firm does not currently possess market power.
Joint dominance. The Abuse Guidelines provide new guidance on the degree of coordination the Bureau considers necessary for joint dominance, adopting a new approach to assess joint dominance (considering the ability of existing and potential competition to restrain firms’ market power and competition between firms) and stating that similar or parallel conduct alone is insufficient to conclude that firms are jointly dominant.
Enforcement in the absence of exclusionary conduct. The Abuse Guidelines also indicate that the Bureau may take enforcement action in some cases where conduct is not exclusionary (i.e., not only where a dominant firm engages in conduct that is predatory, exclusionary or disciplinary toward a competitor, the test for an anti-competitive act established by the Tribunal and the Federal Court).
Valid business justification. The Abuse Guidelines discuss what may constitute a valid business justification for the second branch of the test for abuse of dominance under section 79 with some examples, including reducing costs or improvements in technology. While the Federal Court of Appeal held in the leading Canadian abuse of dominance case, Canada Pipe, that proof of a valid business justification for allegedly anti-competitive conduct can offset and provide an alternative explanation for conduct, Canadian courts and the Bureau have to date provided little guidance as to what may in fact constitute a valid business justification.
January 25, 2013
Steve Szentesi
Kevin Wright (Davis LLP)
(with contributions by Jonathan Gilhen – Davis LLP)
Extract from a chapter to be published in CLEBC’s
Annual Review of Law & Practice – 2013
____________________
2012 was a busy year for Canadian competition and foreign investment law, with significant developments in all major areas including misleading advertising, mergers, abuse of dominance, criminal matters (including cartels, bid-rigging and deceptive marketing) and private actions. The following is an overview of some of the key criminal developments, with summaries of other significant developments in 2012 to come over the next few days.
Criminal Code
Sentencing Amendments
In March 2012, amendments to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”), which were part of the Federal Government’s omnibus crime bill (Bill C-10), received Royal Assent. The changes, which came into force in November 2012, restrict the availability of conditional sentences, including for some offences under the Competition Act (the “Act”). In particular, where a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of less than two years, the court may order a conditional sentence (i.e., served in the community), except in certain circumstances. Those now include where an offence is an indictable offence with a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, which includes sections 45 and 47 of the Act (conspiracy and bid-rigging). These changes to the Code will impact sentencing in competition law cases (i.e., eliminate the ability for courts to impose conditional sentences in some cases). They may also influence whether cases go to trial or settle and whether individuals who are not eligible under the Competition Bureau’s (the “Bureau”) Immunity Program will cooperate with the Bureau under its Leniency Program, which, unlike the Immunity Program, requires guilty pleas as one condition.
DomFoam
(First Amended Competition Act Conviction)
In January 2012, the Bureau announced the first conviction under the Act’s amended conspiracy provisions. Domfoam International Inc. and Valle Foam Industries Inc. pleaded guilty to conspiracy under section 45 of the Act and were fined a total of $12.5 million for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy for polyurethane foam. The Bureau relied on wiretaps and search warrants in its investigation, as well as companies that cooperated with the Bureau under its Immunity and Leniency Programs.
Maxzone
(Cartel Sentencing)
In an important Federal Court decision issued in September, 2012 in the ongoing global auto parts price-fixing investigation (R. v. Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp., 2012 FC 1117), Chief Justice Crampton set the stage for the Court’s future approach to joint sentencing submissions for cartel cases. The Court’s reasons relate to its earlier decision to accept joint sentencing submissions imposing a $1.5 million fine on Maxzone in this price-fixing case (Maxzone pleaded guilty to one count of contravening the foreign directed conspiracy provision of the Act).
Several key points come out of this decision. First, parties making sentencing submissions must do more than adopt the mathematical approach to fines set out in the Bureau’s Leniency Program Bulletin, which establishes 20% of the affected volume of commerce in Canada as a starting point for fine negotiations. Second, while the Bureau’s Leniency Bulletin can be an appropriate framework for sentencing submissions, it must be followed in “letter and spirit” relating to the Code’s sentencing principles (i.e., the fundamental purpose and objectives of sentencing, principle of proportionality and aggravating and mitigating factors). Third, the Court indicated that it will require significantly more detailed evidentiary records and submissions in the future to be satisfied that a recommended sentence will not be contrary to the public interest or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. These include either an estimate of the illegal profits gained (or evidence an accused has made restitution to victims). The Court will also require a good sense of any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors (and how they influenced the jointly recommended fine) and sufficient information to determine whether the recommended sentence appropriately reflects the sentencing principles set out in the Code.
The Court also discussed individual sentencing in cartel cases, recognizing that it may be in the public interest for the Crown to agree to refrain from seeking imprisonment in some cases (e.g., directors, officers or employees of the first company to seek leniency) while at the same time indicating that subsequent leniency applicants may be asked to justify why individual imprisonment is not appropriate. Overall, this recent decision signals an increasingly stern view of cartel sentencing by the Federal Court and a caution the Court will not rubber-stamp mathematically derived sentencing submissions.
Recent Bid-rigging Cases
There have been a number of high-profile bid-rigging cases brought recently by the Bureau and Director of Public Prosecutions, many in relation to the construction industry in Quebec. A few of these cases are summarized below.
Sewer Services in Quebec
In November 2011, the Bureau announced it launched an investigation into bid-rigging (under section 47 of the Act) for municipal and provincial specialized sewer services contracts in the greater Montreal region. As of December 20, 2012, seven companies and seven individuals have been charged, of which three companies and one individual have plead guilty and received a total fine of $140,000, for the three companies, and the individual was sentenced to perform 100 hours of community service.
January 24, 2013
The International Competition Network (ICN) and others have announced a call for nominations for the best antitrust articles for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards, which is being co-organized by the Institute of Competition Law and the George Washington University Competition Law Center. From the ICN:
“Application for nominations of the best antitrust articles for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards are now being accepted through 31 January. The Steering Committees of the Antitrust Writing Awards, composed of leading enforcers, academics and counsels, will nominate the articles. To apply for nomination, please send an email to contact@concurrences.com with a link to the proposed article and its publication references. Click here to see the Rules for eligible articles. The Board of the Antitrust Writing Awards will announce the winning articles on 9 April, at the eve of the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting. The Antitrust Writing Awards are co-organized by the Institute of Competition Law and the George Washington University Competition Law Center. These Awards aim at rewarding those who stand out from their peers by publishing the best academic or business articles.”
January 23, 2013
The Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association has issued a call for papers for its next Canadian Competition Law Review. From the CBA:
“Submissions for the Canadian Competition Law Review are being requested, and should be received by the Editorial Board at the e-mail address shown below, no later than April 1, 2013 for publication in 2013. Academic-quality papers and case comments will be selected for publication on the basis of a double-blind peer reviewed process. Suggested maximum length of full papers is 12,000 words. Papers should be submitted (with authorship removed from title page) to: cancomplrev.@cba.org.”
For more information see: CBA – National Competition Law Section.
January 23, 2013
Steve Szentesi & Kevin Wright (Davis LLP)
Extract from a chapter to be published in CLEBC’s
Annual Review of Law & Practice – 2013
____________________
2012 was a busy year for Canadian competition and foreign investment law, with significant developments in all major areas including misleading advertising, mergers, abuse of dominance, criminal matters (including cartels, bid-rigging and deceptive marketing) and private actions. The following is an overview of some of the key misleading advertising developments (with summaries of other significant developments in 2012 to come over the next few days).
Richard v. Time
(“General Impression” Test & Disclaimers)
In Richard v. Time Inc. (2012 SCC 8), a Quebec resident received a prize mail-out relating to magazine subscription marketing leading him to believe he had won more than $800,000 (the mail-out stated he “WON $833,337.00!” when small print disclaimers disclosed that only a chance to win was being offered). He returned the mail-out, subscribed to the magazine and then requested his prize. When told he had not won, but was merely eligible to participate in a sweepstakes, he sued under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (“QCPA”). While successful at trial, the Court of Appeal reversed and the recipient appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the standard for the “general impression” test for misleading advertising under the QCPA. In this regard, advertising can be false or misleading, under some consumer protection legislation as well as the Competition Act (the “Act”), where a claim is literally false or the “general impression” is misleading. This “general impression” test can apply where, for example, a disclaimer fails to alter the overall misleading impression of a “headline” claim, two true claims are made but, when associated, they create a misleading general impression or material information is omitted (e.g., additional pricing, key limitations/conditions, etc.).
The Supreme Court held that the relevant consumer for the QCPA’s general impression test was a “credulous and inexperienced” consumer. Accordingly, courts should view the average consumer as “someone … not particularly experienced at detecting the falsehoods or subtleties found in commercial representations” (both a lower standard than held by the Court of Appeal in this case as well as other cases decided under the Act, where courts have generally held the relevant consumer to be an “average consumer”).
The Supreme Court in this case held that the general impression of the prize mail-out was that the grand prize had been won, which was misleading, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court also confirmed that in considering whether an advertisement is misleading the entire context, including layout and arrangement of text, must be considered and that fine print disclaimers (in this case “riddled with misleading representations”) failed to cure the otherwise misleading prize claim. Though decided under Quebec law, this case is important in that it has started a debate as to whether Canadian courts will lower the bar for the general impression test for competition law advertising cases.
Yellow Page Marketing
(Misleading Business Claims & Disclaimers)
In Commissioner of Competition v. Yellow Page Marketing, 2012 ONSC 927 (Sup. Ct.), a group of companies and individuals sent faxes designed to lead recipients to believe they were confirming online directory information for the Yellow Pages Group (“YPG”). In fact the companies, which used names and logos resembling YPG, were unrelated to YPG and used fine print disclaimers to sign-up recipients to new two-year online directory contracts with significant fees. The Ontario Superior Court reviewed the relevant law under the general civil misleading advertising provision of the Act (s. 74.01), finding that the faxes were misleading, material and that the fine print disclaimers failed to cure otherwise misleading claims. The penalties ordered by the Court included a ten-year prohibition order, compensating consumers and more than $9 million in AMPs (including more than $1 million against three individuals). This was the highest award to date in contested proceedings for a Canadian misleading advertising case.
Rogers and Rogers/Bell/TELUS Advertising Cases
(Performance Claims and Mobile Advertising)
In two of the most important advertising law developments in 2012, the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) challenged Rogers, Bell and TELUS in cases involving performance claims (Commissioner of Competition v. Chatr Wireless Inc., CV-10-8993-00CL (Ont. Sup. Ct.)) (“Rogers”) and price claims for “premium texting” wireless services (Commissioner of Competition v. Rogers Communications Inc., 12-55497 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)) (“Rogers/Bell/TELUS”).
In the Rogers case, the Bureau is challenging two performance claims made by Rogers in relation to its cell phone brand Chatr: that its service had “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers” and that customers had “no worries about dropped calls”. The Bureau argues that these claims, made to compete with new wireless entrants, were literally false in some cases (in markets where new entrants’ dropped call rates were superior) and where true, were nevertheless misleading because while giving the general impression of appreciably lower dropped call rates, any differences in performance were in reality “inconsequential and imperceptible”. The Bureau is also arguing that disclaimers used by Rogers, which included language that in the Bureau’s view would be “meaningless” to an average consumer, failed to cure the otherwise misleading general impression of the performance claims. Rogers in turn is challenging the appropriate data and methodology for performance claims made and is also making constitutional challenges to the performance claim provision of the Act (based on Charter freedom of expression arguments) and to the $10 million AMPs that may now be imposed under the Act for misleading advertising (arguing they are criminal in nature, constitute penal consequences and should be given the same procedural safeguards as criminal offences).
In the Rogers/Bell/TELUS case, the Bureau commenced additional proceedings in Ontario against Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, TELUS Corporation (the “Telecoms”) and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (“CWTA”) for alleged misleading advertising in relation to “premium texting services” (see: Competition Bureau, News Release, “Competition Bureau Sues Bell, Rogers and Telus for Misleading Consumers” (September 14, 2012)). In this second case, the Bureau is alleging that the Telecoms and CWTA facilitated the sale of 3rd party premium-rate digital content (e.g., news, advice, trivia, horoscopes, ringtones, etc.) without adequately disclosing their fees and suggested that some services were free and is seeking $31 million in AMPS and restitution for consumers. The essence of the Bureau’s claim is twofold: first, that the wireless companies made false or misleading representations to the public the general impression of which was that consumers could receive premium text messaging and other services for free (when they were in fact charged for content); and second, that claims were made that consumers were safeguarded from receiving and having to pay unauthorized charges, when the Telecoms collected and facilitated such charges keeping a percentage. The Bureau also argues that the recent lower general impression test from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Richard v. Time (discussed above) should apply, alleging that the Telecoms’ claims were targeted at wireless users including “credulous, inexperienced, and vulnerable” persons, such as children.
Implications of Recent Advertising Cases
While the two telecom cases discussed above were ongoing at the time of writing, several of these cases have established new law, including lowering the bar for the “general impression” test in Quebec (which may be adopted by courts in other provinces), clarifying the meaning of “business interest” in misleading advertising cases, adding to the case law on disclaimers and illustrating some of the factors Canadian courts will consider in imposing the now more significant penalties possible for misleading advertising.
They are also a reminder of some established advertising law principles, including that courts will consider the overall context and impression of challenged advertising, that fine print or overly legalistic disclaimers may not cure otherwise false or misleading headline claims, that the misleading advertising provisions of the Act apply to product and business claims, and that a claim may violate the misleading advertising provisions of the Act where it is either literally false or the general impression is false or misleading.
Finally, these cases illustrate several important enforcement trends, including increased scrutiny of price and performance claims, challenges of fine print disclaimers, a focus on mobile devices and other new technologies, and a willingness by the Bureau to regularly seek the maximum statutory penalties for misleading advertising.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
