Rogers has made constitutional arguments in response to the Competition Bureau’s allegations that Rogers misled consumers in its performance claims for the Chatr cell phone. The claims are that Chatr has “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers”; the Competition Bureau has taken the view that such claims are unsubstantiated and cannot be substantiated because dropped call rates are not disclosed by new entrant cell phone carriers.
Rogers claims that the civil performance claim provision of the Competition Act contravenes freedom of expression as under the Charter. Furthermore, Rogers adds, the penalties for civil misleading advertising, which were recently revised to be as large as $10 million for corporations, are penal in nature, and thus, unconstitutional without procedural protections. As such, Rogers brings the first constitutional challenge to these revised penalties.
Source: Competition Bureau Press Release
Featured News
Redfin Settles $9.2M Commission Inflation Lawsuits
May 7, 2024 by
CPI
DOJ Supports Colorado’s Efforts to Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger
May 7, 2024 by
CPI
Japan Considers Regulation of AI Developers
May 7, 2024 by
CPI
European Commission Extends Decision Deadline for Ita-Lufthansa Merger
May 7, 2024 by
CPI
UK, US and Australia Sanction Senior Leader of LockBit Cybercrime Gang
May 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI