Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Maybe. Since everyone is so caught up on 'internationally recognized tests', let's review and make sure we are actually using the right language, because the two paragraphs are being conflated.
So b#2 applies much moreso than #1.
Is the science on this 'settled'? Probably not, as there are a lot of caveats with CCS. But if the company can produce sufficient evidence from reliable sources (most likely peer-reviewed publications held in high regard...aka internationally recognized methodology), then sure.
But more likely, as we see is so many other promotional statements, I would expect to see an * that qualifies any statement on a CCS proposal that specifies the scope and parameters.
And you know, we could also just trust that the Competition Bureau is competent, like we do* with most other law enforcement agencies (*for the most part...).
|
This is from a McMillan law article that you can search.
Expansion of Private Party Claims (effective on June 20, 2025)
Private parties are now able to apply for leave to challenge anti-competitive agreements pursuant to section 90.1 and to challenge deceptive marketing practices pursuant to section 74.1. Previously, private party challenges were not available for these two provisions. As noted above, private parties were given the right to challenge abuse of dominance in 2022; in 2023 the first such application was filed.[6]
Bill C-59 relaxes the leave test for private parties for most applications regarding reviewable practices. Private parties challenging refusal to deal, price maintenance, exclusive dealings, tied selling, market restriction, abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreements will be able to obtain leave by showing either that (i) their business is directly or substantially affected in whole or in part; or (ii) the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the public interest to grant leave. The Act currently requires private parties to demonstrate that their entire business is impacted, which has often proven challenging, and does not include a public interest benefit.
Private parties seeking leave from the Tribunal to bring a claim for deceptive marketing practices will be required to show that granting such leave is in the public interest.
As noted above, the Tribunal may also grant monetary awards to private parties – or others affected – in an amount not exceeding the value of the benefit derived from the conduct (i.e., disgorgement).