November 16, 2025

Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this instalment we have:

• Competition Bureau concludes rental software algorithmic collusion investigation but remains concerned
• Bureau continues its pursuit of property controls in the grocery sector in Atlantic Canada
• Google promises E.U. authorities it will change its ways so long as it gets off easy

If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP

Now let’s dive in.

Bureau: Rental Software Not Popular Enough to be a Problem

This week the Competition Bureau concluded its investigation into the use of algorithmic pricing software, or “revenue management software” in the Canadian rental housing market. Their conclusion is a headscratcher, and a reminder of the issues still present in Canada’s competition law. The Bureau outlined its concerns with the use of revenue management software, but found it was not used widely enough to warrant intervention. While the use of these tools had increased in recent years, 2024 saw a sharp drop in their implementation, possibly related to the ongoing American antitrust lawsuit covering the same conduct.

The purpose of these pricing tools is to maximize revenue by finding the highest possible rent a landlord can charge. When used at scale, these algorithms have been shown to facilitate what is known as “tacit collusion,” where prices between competitors converge and move in lockstep based on these pricing recommendations. This kind of pricing software fundamentally changes the way prices are set, giving landlords access to information that there would otherwise be competitive barriers to accessing. That information then feeds the pricing guidance that can drive anticompetitive convergence, possibly without the knowledge of the landlord or property management company.

The outcome of the investigation is a disappointing reminder that Canada’s competition law can still find harmful conduct but only act when the harm becomes “substantial.” We should recognize that this kind of technology is anticompetitive in its very purpose, not just when it is deployed at scale. Canada’s rental market remains in a crisis of both supply and affordability and saying something is concerning but stopping short of acting in that context leaves Canadians in the lurch.

Thankfully the Bureau is not the last word on rental pricing software, and provinces can put a stop to the use of these tools in already overheated rental markets. Canada needs clear rules on the use of algorithmic pricing, ensuring that whether or not they concern the Bureau, renters are protected from anticompetitive conduct in such a key market.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• ​"Death by a thousand cuts:" How private equity is killing small businesses (Do Not Pass Go)

Controlling the Competition

While their rental pricing software investigation has ended, other Bureau investigations continue apace. This week, CBC provided an in-depth summary of the Bureau’s investigation into the use of property controls by grocery giants Empire (Sobeys) and George Weston (Loblaws) in the Halifax area. The investigation has overcome hurdles, including a challenge by Empire to block the Bureau’s request for documentation, including customer behaviour data, that was ultimately dismissed by the courts. While both companies have made commitments to stop the use of property controls, CBC found properties in the Halifax area that were still restricted by these agreements.

Property controls are clauses in rental or sale agreements that restrict the use of commercial properties. They can prohibit landlords from renting other properties to competing businesses or stop a land buyer from operating or leasing to specific kinds of businesses going forward. Property controls are useful for big grocers because of their ability to reinforce dominant positions. Their size that gives them leverage- they may be stable, “anchor tenants” in a commercial area that landlords will seek to please, and they also function as large landowners themselves.

This create barriers to the expansion or creation of smaller competing grocers, because commercial space suitable for grocery stores is already limited due to its specialized nature. Property controls can blunt competitive pressure, limiting options for consumers and keeping prices high. Of course, the competitive issues in the food system go well beyond the land that grocery stores sit on, but investigating property controls is a good start. Just like with rental pricing software, the Bureau is not the only game in town, and more provinces should follow Manitoba’s lead in banning the use of these restrictions to make sure Canadians get more grocery competition sooner.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• McNeil, Who governs the digital sphere? How U.S. proxy lobbying erodes Canada’s digital sovereignty​
• O’Regan, Brussels knifes privacy to feed the AI boom (Politico)
• Arun, Bubble or Nothing: Data Center Project Finance (Center for Public Enterprise)

Google Says Go Easy on Me

Say it with us: Google is a monopoly. You’re in good company, because authorities in the U.S., E.U., and Canada agree with you. Google’s monopoly is most intense in the search and advertising markets that continue to power their business. Google’s monopoly reaches across the advertising stack: they make products that allow advertisers to buy ad space, publishers to sell ad space, and they own the marketplace where auctions for ad space are held. Google built this monopoly with acquisitions, strategic innovations, and decades of anticompetitive practices, including rigging bids and favoring their own products over competitors. The question now is what to do about it.

As Europe moves to conclude its antitrust efforts against the search giant, Google has some suggestions. In response to the finding that they have a monopoly in the online advertising ecosystem, Google has recommended that the European Commission order them to empower their users and pinky-promise to stop the harmful conduct they’ve repeatedly been found engaging in. Unsurprisingly, what Google’s remedy wish list does not include is the durable solution that will prevent future abuses of monopoly power: a breakup.

Antitrust works best when it changes the market structures that have generated harm rather than slaps on the wrist for bad behaviour. Google’s goal is to avoid this outcome with some placating promises to cease its anticompetitive practices, but we’re far past the time for behavioral remedies. Structural problems need structural solutions, and Google is in the midst of using its advertising monopoly to build an AI juggernaut set to dominate the next major technology cycle. Despite the headwinds from the Trump administration, Europe needs to stand firm and pursue divestment if it wants to have a meaningful impact on this important market. Whether in the form of break ups or assertive legislation, countries around the world must continue to the work to recapture even a semblance of fairness, transparency, and regulatory agency in online advertising before it becomes a gateway to the next generation of market dominance.

If you have any monopoly tips or stories you'd like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca

Follow CAMP on Twitter LinkedIn Instagram or Facebook​

​