Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As mentioned, my name is Alexa Gendron-O'Donnell. I'm an associate deputy commissioner at the Competition Bureau. I head up our economic analysis branch.
I am pleased to appear today before the committee studying Apple iPhone performances and their batteries.
For the sake of clarity, I would like to say at the outset that I am unable to comment on the specifics of potential enforcement cases, as the law requires the bureau to conduct its enforcement work in confidence.
Specifically, this means that unfortunately I cannot respond as to whether or not we are currently investigating Apple on this or any other issue, nor can I speak to hypotheticals. I do, however, want to provide some context about the bureau and about its mandates. I'll highlight a few recent examples of enforcement cases within the digital economy.
The Competition Bureau, as an independent law enforcement agency, ensures that Canadian consumers and businesses prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace that delivers competitive prices and more product choice.
The bureau is headed by the commissioner of competition and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act and three of Canada’s labelling statutes.
The Competition Act provides the commissioner with the authority to investigate anti-competitive behaviour. The act contains both civil and criminal provisions and it also grants the commissioner the authority to make representations to regulators.
On the civil side, the bureau conducts investigations into false or misleading representation and other deceptive marketing practices, non-criminal competitor collaborations, abusive conduct by dominant companies, and it reviews mergers.
On the criminal side, the bureau conducts investigations into companies that knowingly or recklessly engage in false or misleading representations, deceptive telemarketing, pyramid schemes, bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation, and output restriction.
Owing to the unique types of investigations that we conduct, the Competition Bureau is staffed mainly by a mix of competition law officers, lawyers, and economists.
Given that many markets are global in scale, the Competition Bureau also regularly co-operates with its key international counterparts, including the U.S. and the EU, and has developed partnerships with other law enforcement agencies and government regulators both internationally and domestically.
The bureau has two enforcement branches that investigate anti-competitive activity in the marketplace. First, the mergers and monopolistic practices branch reviews proposed merger transactions and investigates practices that could negatively impact competition. The second one is the cartels and deceptive marketing practices branch which fights criminal or deceptive business practices that hurt consumers and competition in the market.
The bureau’s advocacy, economic analysis, and international work is supported by the competition promotion branch, which actively encourages the adoption of pro-competition positions, policies, and behaviours by businesses, consumers, regulators, government, and international partners.
It's worth repeating in detail that, as a law enforcement agency, the bureau conducts its activities, including its investigations, in confidence, meaning that all non-public information gathered by the bureau in enforcement matters, whether obtained voluntarily or through the use of formal powers, is held on a confidential basis.
While a party under investigation may itself release information related to an investigation, the bureau does not comment publicly on an investigation or even its existence until the matter has either been made public by the party itself or until certain steps have been taken, such as filing an application with the competition tribunal or announcing a settlement.
Even in those instances, we are required by law to keep confidential any information that is not public. This is done to protect confidential information provided to us by our sources and also to avoid harming the reputation and integrity of defendants before their case has been adjudicated. This ultimately protects the integrity of the bureau’s investigations. That said, the bureau can share confidential information with other law enforcement agencies, but solely for the purpose of administering and enforcing the act.
The goal of our enforcement is to protect Canadian consumers with specific and general deterrence of anti-competitive behaviour in the market. We've had a number of recent enforcement successes with a focus on the digital economy, and I'd really like to highlight those for you now.
Last week, through a consent agreement with Enterprise Canada car rental, the bureau reached a third resolution in its investigation of drip pricing in the car rental industry. That company agreed to pay a $1 million penalty for what the bureau concluded were false or misleading advertising for prices and discounts on car rentals. Those prices were unattainable by consumers because of additional mandatory fees tacked on right before checking out.
Following on the heels of earlier agreements with Avis, Budget, Hertz, and Dollar Thrifty, the total penalties paid by these companies thus far is now in excess of $5 million, and a further $250,000 was contributed to the bureau's investigative costs. Those companies involved have also agreed not to engage in this type of behaviour going forward.
In January of last year, Amazon agreed to pay $1 million in an administrative monetary penalty and $100,000 towards the bureau's investigative costs as part of a consent agreement resolving our concerns over their online pricing practices, which were implying greater savings available to consumers than was actually the case. Amazon also modified the way that it advertised its list prices on its website. It put policies and procedures in place to ensure that consumers were not misled by inaccurate savings claims.
Earlier this month, the Federal Court upheld the bureau's consent agreement with Apple and major e-book publishers Hachette, Macmillan, and Simon & Schuster. The agreements followed a bureau investigation that concluded an anti-competitive arrangement between four publishers and Apple led to higher e-book prices for Canadian consumers. This decision will allow retailers to offer discounts on e-books to consumers and ensure that a fourth consent agreement with publisher HarperCollins will enter into force.
In January of this year, the bureau took legal action against Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation to stop them from allegedly making deceptive marketing claims to consumers when advertising prices for sports and entertainment tickets. In this case, the commissioner is alleging that consumers have been led to believe that they can get tickets at a certain price when in fact mandatory fees imposed by companies often increase the advertised price by 20% to 65%. Among other things, the bureau is seeking an end to the alleged deceptive marketing practices, as well as an administrative monetary penalty.
On the competition promotion side, the bureau is actively engaged in advocacy within the digital economy. One of our most notable projects in this area is our recent market study on fintech, in which we examined the barriers to growth and the adoption of financial technology in Canada and provided a number of recommendations to help regulators and policy-makers continue to promote fintech in three key areas: how consumers pay for goods, how they obtain loans for themselves and their businesses, and how they receive financial advice.
Our final report recommended the modernization of laws and regulations to encourage the entry and adoption of new technologies while maintaining consumer confidence and safety in this rapidly evolving sector. We were extremely pleased to see a significant number of these recommendations incorporated in this week's federal budget.
The bureau also recently released a discussion paper on the issue of big data, with a view to providing guidance on the application of the act and to initiate discussion on how this topical issue should affect competition policy in what is becoming an increasingly data-driven economy. Our findings were that the key principles of competition law enforcement remain valid in big data investigations and, further, that enforcement needs to strike the right balance between taking steps to prevent behaviour that truly harms competition and over-enforcement that chills innovation and dynamic competition.
Although unrelated to the digital economy, I did want to raise one final case with all of you, which is the bureau's participation in a class action settlement with Volkswagen. If approved by the courts, it will provide $290.5 million in compensation to consumers in the Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche emissions case. Combined with last year's two-litre diesel vehicle settlement, the bureau's investigation has resulted in $2.39 billion in compensation for Canadian consumers. Volkswagen and Audi will also pay a penalty of $2.5 million specifically to address the bureau's concerns related to false or misleading advertising and environmental marketing claims that were made to promote certain vehicles with a three-litre diesel engine.
To stay within my allotted time, I will end my comments here. However, I will endeavour to answer any questions you have, recognizing that I am unable to speak to specifics about our enforcement work that has yet to be made public.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today.
Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.
