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
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.
************
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). In general, 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.
The web can prove to be a morass of information. Sifting through the many developments, even in narrower specialties such as competition/antirust and advertising law, is increasingly challenging.
Having said that, we like to mention some particularly worthwhile sites, books and articles in our fields – in this regard, one very fine site we like is Competition Policy International (www.competitionpolicyinternational.com). CPI’s site must surely be the leading and most comprehensive online source for global competition law and policy developments and well worth visiting (often).
Our friends at CPI have also been kind enough to list us in their Blog o’Blogs several times now, including it seems in December for one of our notes regarding remarks by the Commissioner of Competition in Vancouver (see: December Blog o’ Blogs).
It seems we were a little slow to make it to that page, but thank you CPI!
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
We have been seeing an increase lately in penalties imposed in competition cases against individuals in Canada. A number of commentators have also recently noted this shift in enforcement by the Competition Bureau and some Canadian courts.
As a result of this trend, I thought I’d post a short note highlighting some of the recent statements by the Bureau, legislative developments and penalties imposed in one particularly noteworthy case – the ongoing Quebec gasoline price-fixing cartel case (the largest criminal investigation in the Bureau’s history).
For example, the Commissioner of Competition recently indicated that the Bureau had a stronger appetite to pursue penalties against individuals:
“In both cartel and bid–rigging cases, we will be appropriately aggressive when dealing with individuals. To date, 38 individuals have been charged in the Quebec Octane case, and last December, five individuals were accused of rigging bids for private sector contracts in residential highrise buildings in the Montreal area” (see: Keynote Speech at the Canadian Bar Association 2011 Fall Conference).
On February 17, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that Construction G.T.R.L. (1990) Inc., Acoustique JCG Inc. and Enterprises de Construction OPC Inc. pleaded guilty to bid-rigging in Quebec Superior Court in a case relating to the expansion of the Chicoutimi Hospital in 2003 (see: Quebec Construction Companies Plead Guilty to Rigging Bids for the Chicoutimi Hospital).
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The court ordered Construction G.T.R.L. to pay a fine of $50,000, and Acoustique JCG and Entreprises de Construction OPC to pay a fine of $25,000 each. The companies are subject to a court order for a period of 10 years.
‘Bid-rigging harms everyone but the criminals who cheat the system for their own financial gain,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘In this case, the bid-rigging scheme ultimately harmed the Chicoutimi Hospital and Saguenay residents, by preventing the hospital from obtaining a competitive price for its renovation.’”
The construction industry has long been a target of competition/antitrust regulators. For example, some of the construction related cases in Canada, many of which have also involved trade associations and have gone back about a century, have included building contractors, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, plumbing contractors, road surfacing contractors, chain link fence contractors, among many others.
“While the Nation has forbidden monopoly by one set of laws it has been creating them by another. Patent laws, valuable as they may be in some respects, often father monopoly.”
(Robert H. Jackson, The Struggle Against Monopoly)
____________________
“Now, patents are not monopolies, as the counsel have all said, because a monopoly is that which segregates that which was common before, and gives it to one person or to a class, for use or profit; a patent is that which brings out from the realm of mind something that never existed before, and gives it to the country. And when we consider the priceless blessings which have accrued to our land, by the intellect and ingenuity of the country in this department, we feel almost lost in wonder at the vastness of the interests which have been created by the ingenuity of the country, and the immense amount now invested, in this department of property.”
(Singer v. Walmsley, 22 F. Cas. 207 (C.C. Md. 1860) (No. 12,900))
____________________
“The final cause of law is the welfare of society.”
(Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process)
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Telemarketing Update: CRTC Refuses to Vary Do Not Call List Penalty Imposed on Telemarketing Company
On February 13, 2012, the CRTC denied an application by Les Distributions Triple A Inc. (“Triple A”) to review an earlier decision imposing a $6,000 administrative monetary penalty (“AMP”).
In the earlier decision, the Commission imposed a total $6,000 AMP for violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, in relation to calls to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call List (“DNCL”) and for failing to pay applicable DNCL subscription fees.
Triple A sought to have the earlier decision annulled on several grounds, including that it only initiates calls for market research and the AMP imposed was a substantial amount for a small business.
In reviewing Triple A’s application, the Commission considered the criteria for reviewing, rescinding or varying Commission decisions, relying on Telecom Public Notice 98-6 to find that applicants must show that there is a “substantial doubt as to the correctness” of the original decision due to, for example, an error in law in fact, a fundamental change in circumstances or facts or a failure to consider a basic principle raised in the original proceeding (or a new principle arising from the decision).
The American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law has recently published the 2nd edition of its Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook (see: ABA – Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook).
From the ABA:
“The Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook provides practical guidance for lawyers as they counsel their clients and navigate the difficult issues that often arise when a franchise or dealership ends. Termination is often the last thing parties consider when they first enter into a franchise or dealership relationship, but it is a critical event for all parties involved, and can give rise to significant duties and liabilities. A thorough understanding of the contractual relationship between the parties, and the common law and statutory landscape of franchise and dealership termination, is critical to protecting the rights and interests of all involved.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
