The CRTC has apparently received a third lawsuit over the Online Streaming Act. This one comes from Apple.
The Canadian government was warned about a number of things when it comes to the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11). One of those warnings was that the Online Streaming Act was inevitably going to bring about trade challenges from the United States. The Canadian government, blinded by lobbying money and belief chose to ignore those warnings, instead, relying on the completely empty talking point that the Online Streaming Act “complies with all of Canada’s International trade obligations”. It’s an empty talking point given that the United States has been screaming at the Canadian government to not go through with this through warnings and letters. More recently, those warnings turned to action with the United States demanding that it be rescinded as part of their list of demands to keep CUSMA/USMCA from being scrapped altogether (Online News Act was also listed as one of those demands).
Another warning by experts is that the Online Streaming Act would also invite litigation from companies operating in Canada. The Canadian governments response to that talking point has largely been a deer in headlights response followed up by trying to change the channel. In other words, this is a point that the government actively chose to ignore altogether rather than look at ways of amending the law to prevent such a thing from happening. This while accusing critics of being part of a grand conspiracy paid for by “Big Tech” to derail this whole bill without evidence. Well, those warnings ultimately came true. The CRTC was sued not once (Google), but twice (MPA). While those lawsuits, along with complaints from Apple, Spotify, Amazon, Netflix, and Crunchy Roll, Paramount, and Pluto were consolidated into one massive court case, the growing list of litigation didn’t stop there.
Today, Freezenet learned of another lawsuit against the Canadian government and the CRTC. This new lawsuit came courtesy of Apple. The court documents were split into two volumes. Here’s volume 1 (PDF) and here’s volume 2 (PDF). Volume 1 is the lawsuit in question and volume 2 is the submission Apple made at the CRTC back in January.
The lawsuit says that the CRTC is mandating disclosure of data:
Apple has also submitted confidential information to the Commission on two occasions since the Decision without waiving its rights otherwise: once in response to a RFI relating to audio services that was not subject to the Decision, and once in respect of its obligation to file annual information relating to the 2024/2025 Broadcast Year, i.e., that remained subject to the Commission’s previous ruling in the Digital Media Survey Decision.
In its submissions with respect to the Publication Proposal, Apple took the position that no publication of financial data should be made at either the undertaking level or at the operator-specific level. Rather, Apple took the position that only data aggregated at the industry level should be published.
In CRTC 2025-299, among other things, the Commission transformed the Publication Proposal into the Publication Rule. The Commission held that there should be greater transparency with respect to information submitted by online undertakings to the Commission, including information relating to CPE, and decided to require publication of specific types of information, including as follows:
204. Under paragraph 9.1(1)(o) of the Act, the Commission may make orders requiring persons carrying on all types of broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings, to provide any information to the Commission that it considers necessary for the administration of the Act, including financial or commercial information, and information related to programming or expenditures. Currently, most online undertakings are required to submit information requested by the Commission consistent with their conditions of service, while traditional broadcasting undertakings
are subject to various similar provisions set out in regulations or orders, including exemption orders. Transparency is the default under the Act; only limited types of information submitted to the Commission may be designated as confidential. Under section 25.3 of the Act, the Commission is required to balance the protection of such confidential data and disclosure of information in the public interest, thereby maximizing
transparency while safeguarding sensitive information.
The issue on this motion for leave to appeal is whether Apple has an arguable case that the Commission committed an error of law or a jurisdictional error in deciding that, on a going forward basis, it will publicly disclose data and information related to Canadian programming expenditures submitted to it on a confidential basis by industry participants.
ii) Apple submits that it has at least an arguable case that the CRTC committed errors of law or jurisdiction, including as a result of the following:
(i) the Publication Rule is unfair and unreasonable – Apple’s Designated Confidential Information has been recognized as worthy of protection by this Court;
(ii) the Commission did not have the statutory authority to impose the Publication Rule;
(iii) the Publication Rule directly conflicts with the Statutory Confidentiality Regime for dealing with confidential information; and
(iv) the Publication Rule operates to fetter the Commission’s discretion under subsections 25.3(4) and (5) of the Broadcasting Act.
Yeah, I can see why Apple would be annoyed by such a rule. The government is mandating financial disclosures that Apple considers confidential. Apple contends that such asks are unreasonable and that the CRTC is exceeding its authority in asking for this.
I took a look around for reports of any kind regarding this lawsuit, but nothing I found mentioned this lawsuit in particular. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is further analysis coming down the line here.
Given just how problematic the Online Streaming Act is, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is even further litigation coming down the pipeline. Decisions are still forthcoming at the CRTC (very VERY delayed decisions no less) and that can open the door to more lawsuits. Who knows, though? Maybe the Canadian government will finally come to their senses after being pressured by the United States to rescind this law and save themselves even more legal trouble. One can only hope anyway.
