September 6, 2026

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 installment we have:

• The cinema ‘zones’ that left a Toronto theatre with no reservations on screening for Tony’s opening week
• U.S. Judge rejects structural remedies for Google in its online advertising monopoly case
• The FTC goes after Amazon for bending the rules in the auctions that power its growing advertising business

If you enjoy Letters, please consider sharing and supporting CAMP.

Now let’s dive in.

Restrictive Zones Keep Tony from Torontonians

Many Canadian cinephiles set on seeing Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey in 70mm IMAX had to travel to do so because only a few theatres have the capabilities to show that format. Inconvenient, but an understandable limitation. But this week, when The Carlton theatre in downtown Toronto announced it had to cancel screenings of Canadian-directed Tony, it wasn’t because they didn’t have the means; it was because they weren’t allowed. Opening week screenings of the Bourdain biopic would instead by limited to screens at Cineplex, Canada’s movie theatre monopolist.

This comes from an outdated practice of cinema ‘zones’ which limits the availability of films based on geographic limits. Cue the finger pointing. Cineplex told CBC the decision belongs to distributor A24, who have discretion in who gets to show films on opening weekend. But it’s Cineplex who stands to gain from the practice, not A24. Cineplex is responsible for approximately 75-80% of Canada’s cinema revenue and over half of its silver screens, giving them effective leverage over their suppliers who in the age of digital distribution face few hurdles to getting their movies on screens.

Limiting a competitors’ access to inputs for no reason other than choking off competition is a classic case of abuse of dominance. Distributors are worse off because they have fewer screens to show their movies, indie cinemas are worse off because they have less business, and viewers are worse off because they have less choice and must travel further. Just like property controls in the grocery sector, we need to roll back the ability of dominant firms to shape the markets around them. An economy geared around incumbents instead of challengers is one that’s worse for everyone except those at the center. Let the people see Tony.

📰 CAMP in the News 📰

• ​Author says Trump’s ‘Lake America’ order driving hits to guide on ditching U.S. tech (CFJC Today)

U.S. Judge Allows Google to Keep its Advertising Monopoly Intact

Tis the season to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Last year, a U.S. court ruled that Google had a monopoly in online advertising, built through years of acquisitions, rigged auctions, and other anticompetitive practices. Leveraging its lines of business in search, wayfinding, video sharing, and mobile operating systems, Google cemented its place in the center of the market that drives much of the internet. The decision was a win and followed a similar, and even more obvious, designation of their search business as a monopoly.

This week, after nearly a year of waiting, the judge in the case has decided what the consequences of being a monopoly should be: not much. Although specifics are under seal for two weeks, the forecast is uninspiring. The judge has rejected the structural remedies proposed by the DOJ, which would have forced Google to sell off its online advertising auction house and open access to its advertising services. This would have had the best shot of preventing Google from manipulating the market and to create space for competitors.

Instead, Google will only be ordered to obey behavioral remedies, shaving the rough edges off of the company’s advertising monopoly while keeping the structure intact. Given the long track record of failing behaviour remedies, this is a disappointing result. It also makes it more likely that the European Commission reaches a similar conclusion in its forthcoming remedy decision on its own parallel case. It also boxes in the Competition Bureau ahead of its January trial against the search giant in Canada, giving any judge a reason to reject meaningful remedies. If we want to change outcomes, we need to change the structure of markets. So far, it’s clear U.S. judges aren’t up to the task.

📚 What We’re Reading 📚

• Powell, Bottleneck Britain: How digital competition could power UK growth and sovereignty (Institute for Public Policy Research)
• Ramzanali and Thayer, Google’s Search Monopoly Money Will Let It Purchase the AI Market(ProMarket)
• Rozen, How mass surveillance from online advertising puts journalists at risk (Committee to Protect Journalists)

FTC Sues Amazon for Manipulating Auctions to Inflate Profits

A year after settling with Amazon for surreptitiously enrolling users for Prime subscriptions and making it difficult to cancel, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wants to take the global e-commerce giant back to court. This time, they’re doing so on behalf of advertisers. Many of Amazon’s products – it’s online marketplace, Prime Video, Twitch – are both services and big opportunities for advertising. In fact, turning these platforms into avenues for advertising has made the company the third largest online advertising company by revenue in the US and Canada, behind Meta and Alphabet.

The FTC is alleging that Amazon rigged the auctions that decides the pricing and placement of ads on these products to the benefit of the e-commerce giant and at the cost of advertisers. To decide ad prices, Amazon uses what are called “second price” auctions. The pitch for advertisers is that instead of paying their actual bid, the highest bidder for a given ad pays only one cent more than the second highest price. These kinds of auctions have been industry standard in the online advertising market for years and are well understood by the sector.

Instead, the FTC alleges that Amazon added a secret surcharge to these bids so that as much as 80% of bidders end up paying close to their actual bid rather that the available second price. The FTC puts the potential cost of this deception to advertisers in the tens of billions of dollars. The new suit pairs well with California’s ongoing lawsuit against the company for pressuring brands to raise prices on other online marketplaces. A familiar pattern of behaviour is emerging: not happy with how the market is working? Rig it.

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

Follow CAMP on LinkedIn or Twitter​