Given the recent high-profile contest case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada late last month (see: Supreme Court Awards Compensatory and Punitive Damages in Misleading Contest Case), this short note posted by Consumer Protection BC earlier today on sweepstakes scams caught my eye: Seniors Continue to be Victims of a Classic Scam.
Consumer Protection BC discusses, among other things, enforcement efforts in a recent BC deceptive sweepstakes case and tips to avoid becoming a victim of fraud.
Some of the suggestions made by Consumer Protection BC include not paying for prizes upfront, being suspicious of free gifts, not sending contest organizers personal information, shredding personal information before disposing and explaining scams to vulnerable family members.
On March 14, 2012, Industry Minister Christian Paradis announced that the federal government would ease foreign ownership restrictions on telecom companies in Canada and put in place caps on upcoming wireless spectrum auctions to allow smaller wireless companies increased access to the market.
In the Industry Canada news release, the Minister announced that the Telecommunications Act would be amended to lift foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies with less than a 10% market share and that the Government would be applying caps in the upcoming spectrum auctions to “guarantee that both new wireless competitors and incumbent carriers have access to the spectrum up for auction”.
The Government also introduced several other measures, including the improvement and extension of tower sharing and roaming policies and imposing obligations on 700 MHz spectrum licence holders for the timely delivery of advanced wireless services to rural Canadians.
The impetus for these changes, according to the Government, included the fact that the “Canadian wireless landscape had changed significantly” since the last auctioning of Advanced Wireless Services Spectrum in 2008. Some of the specific changes have included new wireless entrants (e.g., Wind Mobile and Mobilicity). In this regard, the Government said in its related Backgrounder:
“The Canadian wireless landscape has changed significantly since the 2008 auctioning of Advanced Wireless Services spectrum. At that time, the government set aside spectrum for new entrants and implemented other policies to support new competitors. New entrants have since made large investments to launch services and are providing greater choice to Canadian consumers. These new entrants currently serve over 1 million Canadians. At the same time, Canadian incumbent wireless providers continued to invest in their networks. Over 98 percent of Canadians now have access to high-speed wireless services. Average Canadian mobile wireless prices have fallen by more than 10 percent since 2008.”
Given the recent announcements that the LIBOR price-fixing investigation had expanded to Canada (see: Cartel Update: Competition Bureau Investigates Alleged Interbank Lending Rate Coordination), I thought that I would post some information about this rather interesting recent paper by Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz and Albert D. Metz discussing the use of screens in distinguishing explicit from tacit collusion in price-fixing cases. (“Screens” are statistical tests designed to identify whether collusion or manipulation exists in a market and which companies/individuals may be involved.)
This paper has been published by our friends at Competition Policy International (CPI) in their March edition of CPI Antitrust Chronicle (see: Competition Policy International).
Jeff Gray and Tara Perkins at the Globe have written an interesting note on criticism of the Competition Bureau’s recently launched merger registry (see: Competition Bureau’s Mergers List Panned).
For the first transactions disclosed by the Bureau in its new merger registry see: Monthly Report of Concluded Merger Reviews. For more about Canadian merger control see: Merger Control. For the Canadian Bar Association’s comments on the proposed registry last fall see: Proposed Merger Registry.
Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, has received Royal Assent (see: Bill C-10 – Status of Bill).
Among other things, Bill C-10 amends the current section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that where a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of less than two years, the court may impose a conditional sentence (i.e., order the sentence to be served in the community), except in certain circumstances.
One such circumstance is where an offence is an indictable offence, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.
Given the controversy lately about the recently introduced federal Internet surveillance legislation (Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act), including commentary on changes to the Competition Act, I thought I would take a closer look to see what all the fuss has been about.
The Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, introduced Bill C-30 on February 14, 2012 and it passed first reading but has since stalled based on criticism from the public, academics and Liberals (see for example: Conservative Lawful Access Bill has Serious Implications for Canadians’ Privacy, Liberals Call on Government to Protect the Privacy of All Canadians, Liberals Launch Petition and Amendments to Government Snooping Bill, How to Fix Canada’s Online Surveillance Bill: A 12 Step To-Do List, C-30 orders called “draconian” and Ottawa hits pause on Web surveillance act).
Bill C-30 would, if passed, give enforcement authorities, including the Competition Bureau, enhanced powers to monitor Internet communications and obtain Internet user information – for example, requiring telecom providers to establish and maintain measures to enable the interception of transmitted information and provide basic subscriber information to the RCMP, Canada’s intelligence body (CSIS), the Competition Bureau or the police.
Bill C-30 would also amend the wiretap and warrant provisions of the Criminal Code and add new investigative powers relating to computer crime and use of emerging technologies for crimes.
With respect to the Competition Act, Bill C-30 would, if passed, amend the Act to incorporate the proposed Criminal Code provisions relating to demands and orders for the preservation of computer data (and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data). Some of the specific proposed changes to the Competition Act include:
Expanding the definition of “record”. The definition of “record” in subsection 2(2) of the Competition Act would be amended (and expanded) to include any “medium on which information is registered or marked”.
The International Antitrust Law Committee of the ABA has published their March 2012 “Hot Topics” Newsletter entitled “Updates to the Canadian Merger Review Process” (see: Updates to the Canadian Merger Review Process).
Abstract:
“On January 11, 2012, the Canadian Competition Bureau published a revision of its Merger Review Process Guidelines. The revised Guidelines set out the Bureau’s approach to the merger review process under the Competition Act, which was most recently articulated in 2009 following the significant changes to the merger notification provisions which conform more closely to the ‘second request’ system employed in the United States.
The revised Guidelines represent refinements rather than wholesale changes to the process articulated in 2009, and are principally concerned with the procedures to be followed when responding to a Supplementary Information Request (‘SIR’)”
Byron Holland, CEO and President of Canada’s Internet domain name regulator the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), has written an interesting short note on domain name seizures and the importance of domains to the global economy (see: Domain name seizures and .CA).
Topics he chats about include the recent seizure by U.S. authorities of the Canadian online gaming site bodog.com, which garnered rather a lot of media attention recently, jurisdictional issues connected to the registration of domain names and the importance of the Internet to the global economy:
“If you register a domain name with an extension that is managed in another country, it is likely subject to the laws of that country – full stop. If a website is found to be in violation of American law, and the domain for that site is an extension managed by a U.S. entity, the U.S. government may seize it.
If you keep your business in another country (in the case of Canada, register a .CA with a Canadian Registrar and use a Canadian web host), foreign governments can’t unilaterally seize it. CIRA has never been asked by a foreign government to shut down or seize a domain name.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
