The CRTC has, once again, been sued over the Online Streaming Act. This time, by the Motion Picture Association Canada and several others.
It was long warned that litigation would happen as a result of the Online Streaming Act. Now there is a growing list of times that the CRTC has been litigated over the implementation of the Act.
Supporters of the Online Streaming Act have largely dismissed the predictions of litigation as little more than a conspiracy pushed by “Big Tech” in an effort to derail the legislative process. The reality is that those warnings were coming from experts and observers of the debates – many of whom were independent of the platforms in question.
The other thing that was reality is that the scenario that people had warned about continues to repeatedly come true. The CRTC was sued not once, not twice, but at least three times now. The litigation is no doubt going to cost Canadian taxpayers a pretty penny as the Canadian government is forced to defend this particular boondoggle.
If you thought the wave of litigation is over, well, it turns out, you are wrong. Freezenet has learned of a fourth lawsuit filed by the Motion Picture Association Canada. You can read the court document in question here (PDF). The MPAC was joined by numerous other parties. Those parties are Netflix, Amazon, Buena Vista, FUBO TV, Paramount, Pluto, Sony, Crunchy Roll, Curver Max Entertainment, and Universal Pictures.
Much like the third lawsuit, this lawsuit is complaining about the companies being coerced to disclose sensitive financial information. From the lawsuit:
7. The Applicant Motion Picture Association – Canada (“MPA-Canada”) is the Canadian affiliate of the Motion Picture Association (“MPA”). The MPA is the voice and advocate of major international producers and distributors of film, television and streaming programming for global audiences. MPA-Canada participated in the CRTC proceeding leading to the Decision on behalf of members of the MPA. The other Applicants are, directly or indirectly, such members (“MPA Companies”).
8. Under the Decision, the MPA Companies’ confidential information that they are required to provide to the CRTC will be disclosed to the public, to their serious detriment as discussed below.
5. The Decision concerns the CRTC’s determination to disclose online undertakings’ confidential financial information that they are obliged to file with the CRTC, among other subjects. This determination violates the statutory confidentiality process and substantive confidentiality regime newly enacted by Parliament, putting the Applicants at serious risk of competitive and other harm. The CRTC’s violation of its statutory confidentiality obligation undermines the integrated scheme Parliament mandated in the Online Streaming Act, which in 2023 amended the Broadcasting Act.
6. The CRTC made two errors of law and jurisdiction in the Decision concerning what the CRTC labelled its “Publication of financial data” decision:
(a) The CRTC misinterpreted the statutory confidentiality process mandated at s. 25.3 of the Broadcasting Act, by erroneously deciding in advance to publish future sensitive financial information without giving the Applicants an opportunity to designate it as confidential and make representations at the time the information is provided.
(b) The CRTC misinterpreted the scope of the phrase “disclosure is in the public interest” at s. 25.3 of the Broadcasting Act, by failing to construe this phrase in the context of the Broadcasting Act as a whole.
So, basically, the platforms are being asked to fork over highly sensitive financial information over to the government. The government, in turn, is basically interpreting the disclosure as something to hand over to the public supposedly out of the interest to the public. This defeats the purpose of confidentiality. At least, that is what the lawsuit appears to be saying here.
One thing is for sure, when the Online News Act was passed, one of my thoughts at the time was that I’ll probably just sit over here and count the number of lawsuits that come from this. So far, that’s exactly what I ended up doing. With the count already at four, I personally wouldn’t be surprised if the number of lawsuits increase as time goes on.
With the resignation of Steve G., really hope there’s less roadblock to not repeal OSA/ONA. Carney could score easy political points, the two bills are weights in the liberals, and counter productive to “Elbows up” (even with “cancon”). And lawsuit costly.