In a significant recent decision by the federal Competition Tribunal, the Tribunal granted leave to the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario (the “UCDA”) to make a section 75 refusal to deal application relating to a refusal by the Insurance Bureau of Canada (the “IBC”) to supply data to it for one of its products for its members.
This recent case, reasons for which were issued on September 9, 2011, is significant, in that the UCDA was seeking leave to make its refusal to deal application in light of a longstanding adverse decision – the Warner music case.
(Leave from the Tribunal is a prerequisite to making refusal to deal applications to the Competition Tribunal, as well as private applications under the price maintenance (section 76) and exclusive dealing/tied selling/market restriction sections (under section 77).)
In its earlier Warner decision, the Tribunal held that licenses to use and reproduce intellectual property (music in Warner) was not a “product” for section 75 of the Competition Act and also that a license could not be in “ample supply” (two of a number of requirements under section 75), given that a license holder has a right under intellectual property legislation (e.g., the Copyright Act) to decide whether or not to license its IP to third parties.
In light of Warner, it has generally been thought that refusals to license intellectual property could not be the subject of refusal to deal applications under section 75 (or at minimum, that arguments would need to be made as to why Warner should not apply to a particular case, and that this could reduce the likelihood of success of section 75 applications in the context of intellectual property refusals to deal).
On September 7, 2011, the federal Competition Bureau announced that it had reached a settlement with Nivea’s Canadian distributor, Beiersdorf Canada Inc., relating to allegedly false or misleading performance claims in its advertising.
In particular, the Bureau took issue with claims that suggested that the use of skin cream could lead to weight loss. Under the terms of the consent agreement negotiated with the Bureau, Beiersdorf has agreed to pay an “administrative monetary penalty” or “AMP” of Cdn. $300,000 (“AMPs” are essentially civil fines), refund Canadian customers and remove its products from Canadian shelves.
In making its announcement, the Bureau said:
“A Bureau investigation determined that Beiersdorf made a number of deceptive claims about its “My Silhouette” product. The misleading representations were displayed on the package and on Nivea’s Web site. The representations stated that:
use of the product could lead to a “reduction of up to 3 centimetres on targeted body parts, such as thighs, hips, waist and stomach”;
My Silhouette “contains a highly effective natural Bio-Slim Complex for a slimmer looking and more defined silhouette”; and
My Silhouette “combines high performance active ingredients for a dual effect of slimming & reshaping.”
Beiersdorf’s representations also created the misleading impression that use of the product could make the skin more toned and elastic.
““Beiersdorf misled consumers by claiming a person could slim down by simply applying a skin cream,”” said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ““Unfortunately, consumers who purchased My Silhouette learned the hard way that there was no such easy fix.””
Under the terms of the consent agreement registered with the Competition Tribunal today, Beiersdorf is also required to publish a corrective notice on Nivea’s Canadian Web site and in major Canadian newspapers, and to pay $80,000 to cover costs associated with the Bureau’s investigation.”
We are pleased to announce this upcoming antitrust leniency luncheon conference, moderated by our friends at Sutts, Strosberb LLP
____________________
Corporate Leniency in an Era of Increased Enforcement
Presented by the State Bar of Michigan’s Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section.
It’s early morning and you are driving into the office. The phone rings. It is your best client in a panic. The morning supervisor called with surprising news: the FBI executed a federal warrant on their facility and federal officers are seizing cell phones, computers, hard drives, and hard files.
What does this mean? What happens next? Are they at risk individually?
In this era of increased antitrust enforcement, every practitioner should be familiar with the Department of Justice’s Corporate and Individual Leniency Programs. Knowing how and when to cooperate with the DOJ can mean the difference between amnesty and millions in fines/penalties and incarceration. This panel of experts will discuss the applicability of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (ACPERA), issues in-house counsel face in considering leniency, and the interaction of leniency applications with subsequent criminal investigations and civil lawsuits.
PANEL
Kevin Culum, United States Department of Justice (Cleveland, OH)
Jay Himes, Labaton Sucharow (New York, NY)
Gordon Lang, Nixon Peabody (Washington, DC)
MODERATORS
Andrew Morganti, Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Chair, SBM Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section
L. Pahl Zinn, Dickinson Wright PLLC and Chair-Elect, SBM Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section
WHEN
Friday, September 16, 2011 – 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
WHERE
State Bar of Michigan Annual Meeting at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Dearborn, Michigan
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On September 2, 2011, the Competition Bureau released its “ex-post assessment” of its 2007 Self-Regulated Professions Study (Self-regulated professions – Balancing competition and regulation (December, 2007)).
According to the Bureau, its new Study “surveys and assesses developments that have taken place relating to recommendations made in [its] 2007 Study” and “provides an overview of the progress made since 2007” to the earlier recommendations made by the Bureau.
In 2007, the Bureau released a Study on the rules and regulations governing five Canadian professions (real estate agents, pharmacists, lawyers, accountants and optometrists), intended to study the impact (or lack of it in some cases) of competition on the self-regulated professions in Canada.
The Bureau’s 2007 Study examined six aspects of self-regulation – in particular, restrictions on entering a profession, mobility, business structure, scope of services/practice, advertising and pricing and compensation – and made 53 recommendations to the various professions in an effort to try and enhance competition in those professions.
On August 31, 2011, The Canadian Real Estate Association requested leave to intervene in the Competition Bureau’s abuse of dominance case against The Toronto Real Estate Board to support TREB.
The Competition Tribunal Act allows any person affected by Tribunal proceedings to intervene in proceedings with leave from the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has held that to grant intervenor status, the following elements must be met: (i) the matter alleged to affect the person seeking leave to intervene must be legitimately within the scope of the Tribunal’s consideration (or must be a matter sufficiently relevant to the Tribunal’s mandate); (ii) the person seeking leave to intervene must be directly affected; (iii) all representations made by a person seeking intervenor status must be relevant to an issue specifically raised by the Commissioner; and (iv) the person seeking leave to intervene must bring a unique or distinct perspective to the Tribunal that will assist the Tribunal in deciding the issues before it (see e.g., Commissioner of Competition v. Canadian Waste Services Holdings Inc., 2000 Comp. Trib. 10; Commissioner of Competition v. The Canadian Real Estate Association, 2010 Comp. Trib. 12 (order allowing National FSBO Network Inc.’s motion for leave to Intervene)).
On August 30, 2011, the Competition Bureau announced that five individuals in Alberta were convicted and sentenced of deceptive telemarketing under the Competition Act.
In making the announcement, the Bureau stated:
“The individuals have been convicted of deceptive telemarketing under the Competition Act and of committing fraud over $5000 under the Criminal Code of Canada. The names of the individuals convicted and their respective sentences are:
Garther Cheung and Sukhraj Singh Chana, co-founders of the company, were each sentenced to one year for each of three counts of deceptive telemarketing and to two years in a federal penitentiary for committing fraud over $5,000, all time to be served concurrently.
Pritpal Chana and Ranjit Sangha, both managers of the company, were each sentenced to 16 months for each of three counts of deceptive telemarketing and 16 months for committing fraud over $5,000, all time to be served concurrently. The first eight months will be served as house arrest and the remaining eight months on probation.
Andrea Kyweriga, also a manager, was given a suspended sentence and placed on two years probation after being convicted of two counts of deceptive telemarketing and one count of fraud over $5000.
The five individuals are also prohibited from doing any act or thing that would be directed toward the deceptive telemarketing offence being committed or repeated for the next 10 years.
A sixth individual, Sarah Schaefer, pleaded guilty in 2007 and received a $15,000 fine.”
On July 7, 2011, the Competition Bureau filed an Amended Notice of Application in its abuse of dominance case against The Toronto Real Estate Board (“TREB”).
The Bureau’s Amended Notice of Application follows TREB’s issuance of a proposed policy and rule amendments to allow its broker members to operate “virtual office websites” (“VOWs”) (secure, password-protected websites operated by real estate brokers allowing customers to perform their own MLS searches over the Internet).
The Bureau first challenged TREB back in May (see: Commissioner of Competition and The Toronto Real Estate Board – Notice of Application and Competition Bureau Sues Canada’s Largest Real Estate Board for Denying Services Over the Internet).
The Bureau has taken the position that TREB and its members control the market for residential real estate brokerage services in the Greater Toronto Area, that TREB has engaged in a practice of anti-competitive acts (board rules and policies preventing members from operating VOWs) and that those rules have resulted in a substantial lessening of competition in the residential real estate brokerage services market in the GTA (in particular, blocking real estate firms from offering innovative Internet-based services, including VOWs).
The essence of the Bureau’s abuse of dominance argument was (and remains) that TREB has used its control of its MLS system (each local real estate board in Canada operates its own MLS system) to pass rules that discipline and exclude real estate firms that want to offer VOWs.
On August 15, 2011 Air Canada filed its response in the contested Air Canada / United Continental merger.
In this case, the Bureau seeks to both unwind existing Air Canada / Continental cooperation agreements and also to prevent a proposed cross-border joint venture between the parties under the merger provision of the Competition Act (section 92) and the recently enacted, and as yet untested, civil agreements provision of the Act (section 90.1).
The Air Canada / Continental agreements have involved coordination in relation to code sharing operations, joint fare discounts and incentive programs on trans-border routes (the “Alliance Agreements”).
The proposed merger, which was to be achieved by way of a joint venture, would, according to Air Canada, “complement” its existing JV agreements with Continental and result in “deeper and more comprehensive integration and coordination” on Air Canada / Continental trans-border routes that had previously been possible under the parties’ existing bilateral agreements.
Proposed integration would include joint pricing, joint route planning and scheduling, coordinated marketing, harmonization of sales processes and revenue sharing. In essence, according to Air Canada, the proposed JV would both add to the number of existing Air Canada / United coordinated activities and further formalize existing contractual arrangements.
The case is significant in that it is the first challenge of agreements by the Bureau under the civil agreements provision of the Act passed in 2009 (and which came into force in 2010) and also represents a relatively rare challenge of a merger structured as a joint venture. “Merger” is defined broadly in the Competition Act to include acquisitions of control by “purchase or lease of shares or assets, by amalgamation or by combination or otherwise” (and while there is a merger exception for joint ventures, it is relatively narrowly defined and difficult to apply in practice).
The case is also significant in that it is one of two currently proceeding contested merger cases before the Tribunal, which are the first contested merger cases in six years.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
