Author: Consumer Choice Center

Canadians Demand More Internet Choice—It’s Time for Action

A recent study by Rubicon Strategy has confirmed what many Canadians have been saying for years: the lack of competition in the internet service market is hurting consumers. With a majority of Canadians supporting increased competition and 71% backing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in allowing all providers to expand, it’s clear that policymakers must act in favor of consumer choice.

The State of Internet Competition in Canada

For far too long, internet services in many parts of Canada have been dominated by a few major players. In Ontario, Rogers and Bell have maintained a duopoly, while in Quebec, Bell and Cogeco hold a similar grip on the market. This lack of competition has led to higher prices, fewer service options, and slower adoption of cutting-edge technology.

Canadians are fed up. The Rubicon Strategy study found that an overwhelming 9 in 10 Canadians believe they should have the right to choose their internet provider. This isn’t just about preference—it’s about fairness, affordability, and access to better services.

More Competition Means Lower Prices

One of the key findings of the research is that a large majority of Canadians believe that increasing competition will lead to lower prices. And they’re absolutely right. When companies are forced to compete, they must offer better deals, improved customer service, and enhanced technology to attract consumers.

But the government’s actions don’t always reflect this economic reality. If policymakers allow protectionist measures that shield major telecom companies from competition, consumers will continue to suffer. Nearly three-quarters of Canadians say they would doubt the government’s commitment to affordability if it restricts internet choice. In an era where affordability is a top concern, maintaining competition should be a no-brainer.

The CRTC’s Role and the Federal Government’s Review

The CRTC originally ruled in favor of allowing all providers to expand their services across Canada, a decision widely praised by consumer advocates. However, the federal government has now ordered a review of this decision, raising concerns that it may cave to pressure from large telecom companies that want to keep competition out.

The research shows that Canadians want the CRTC to stick to its decision: 71% support the CRTC rejecting the government’s order to reconsider and proceeding with its original plan to expand competition. This is a clear call for regulatory independence and consumer-focused policymaking.

An Election Issue in the Making

Politicians should take note: blocking internet service provider expansion is shaping up to be a significant election issue. If the government makes a decision that leads to less competition and fewer choices for Canadians, many voters say they would be less likely to support that party.

This issue isn’t just about internet service—it’s about whether the government truly prioritizes consumers over corporate interests. With the next election on the horizon, leaders who ignore the public’s demand for more choice in internet services may face significant political consequences.

The Consumer Choice Center’s Call to Action

At the Consumer Choice Center, we have long championed competition, innovation, and consumer freedom. The findings of this research reinforce what we have been advocating: Canadian consumers deserve better, and they deserve the right to choose their internet service provider.

We urge the federal government to respect the CRTC’s decision and allow all providers to expand. Instead of protecting outdated monopolies, policymakers must focus on policies that encourage investment, lower prices, and improve service quality for all Canadians.

The message from Canadians is loud and clear: more competition, better prices, and real consumer choice. The government must listen—or risk facing the consequences at the ballot box.

Loading...

Did Trump issue tariffs against Canada today?

Newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump stopped short of implementing 25 per cent tariffs against all Canadian imports on day one but hinted the measure might be just around the corner during his inaugural address on Monday (Jan. 20).

Speaking at an indoor ceremony at the Capitol Rotunda in Washington D.C., Trump didn’t address Canada by name, but focused on the southern border with Mexico, taking aim at perceived threats surrounding illegal immigration and crime.

Addressing a slew of executive orders, Trump confirmed his plans to establish the “External Revenue Service” he said will collect tariffs, duties and revenues from foreign sources.

“Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” Trump announced.

Make other nations pay?

Trump doubled down on his claims that he will make foreign nations pay heavy tariffs, despite warnings from economists that tariffs will lead to higher prices for Americans.

According to Export Development Canada, buyers are usually responsible for paying tariffs and many importers pass these costs down to consumers by charging higher prices.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Monday that Trump planned to issue a broad memorandum to direct federal agencies to study trade policies and evaluate the U.S. trade relationships with China, Mexico and Canada. But the directive stopped short of imposing new tariffs on Trump’s first day in office.

Read the full text here

The royals coming after American free speech

The British royals are coming after American free speech, just days before Donald Trump is set to take office as president for the second time.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle expressed outrage that Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, changed policy to rely on community notes versus a dedicated fact-checking department.

Ironically, the pair suggested Meta’s policy change “directly undermines free speech.” How exactly? Because, according to Harry and Meghan, Mark Zuckerberg is, allegedly, prioritizing those using social media “to spread hate, lies and division.”

What’s more, the pair suggest Meta’s decision is based on American politics which should “never determine whether freedom of expression and civil and human rights are protected in the online spaces so clearly shaping or destroying democracy.” So much for the War of Independence.

Trump campaigned on a promise to “Make America Great Again (Again).” The former president and now president-elect has made a name for himself with his uber-patriotism — some would say nationalism — and eschewing of more European-style policies on everything from high tax rates to “net zero” environmental and energy standards to immigration rules. In his first term, he battled European leaders on an array of policy matters, including NATO contributions and many European nations’ tendency to rely on the US for their security needs instead of standing up their own national defenses.

Read the full text here

FDA bans red dye No. 3 in Biden frenzy for regulations

The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday that it was banning red dye No. 3 from food and drugs because it causes cancer in laboratory rats. This move was part of a last-minute regulatory frenzy by the Biden administration that also included a bid to cap nicotine in cigarettes.

Red dye No. 3 gives food and drinks a bright, cherry-red color. It is also known as erythrosine, or Red No. 3, and is found in cough syrups and other medicines.

The FDA said food manufacturers will have until mid-January 2027 to remake their products without the substance, and producers of ingested drugs will have until January 2028.

The administration approved the ban as it cleared the regulatory decks before ceding control to President-elect Donald Trump and his team on Monday.

Regulators revoked the authorization of red dye No. 3 under the Delaney clause, allowing them to crack down on substances that induce cancer in humans or animals.

Industry groups highlighted parts of the FDA statement that found cancer links in rats, though not in humans, while consumer groups hailed the ban as a big step forward.

“Today’s action by the FDA marks a monumental victory for consumer health and safety,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that promotes health. “For years, Red 3 remained in food products, despite growing evidence linking it to health problems, particularly in kids.”

Read the full text here

Vietnam’s vaping ban to exacerbate smoking in Southeast Asia

Tobacco harm reduction experts warned that Vietnam’s plan to ban the use of e-cigarettes would deprive smokers of better alternatives and encourage them to continue smoking.

Asa Saligupta, director of ENDS Cigarette Smoke Thailand (ECST), said Vietnam’s vaping ban is contrary to the global trend toward regulating vapes and heated tobacco products and represents a “dangerous step” that could derail tobacco harm reduction efforts in Southeast Asia.

“A ban on e-cigarettes will only push vapers to the black market, which is beyond the control of authorities in terms of regulation and product standards,” Saligupta said. “Worse, this would encourage vapers to return to smoking, which is the most dangerous form of nicotine consumption because of the combustion process that results in serious health risks.”

Saligupta said Vietnam should instead follow the Philippines’ example by regulating e-cigarettes and other smoke-free products to provide smokers with better alternatives to cigarettes, reduce smoking risks, and ensure these products are kept out of the hands of minors.

Read the full text here

New Illinois laws affecting electronic cigarettes go into effect Jan. 1

New Illinois laws that go into effect Jan. 1, will place more restrictions on electronic cigarettes.

One law prohibits the advertising, marketing or promoting of an electronic cigarette in a manner that is likely to cause a person to mistake it for an object that is anything other than what it is, a tobacco product.  

State Sen. Julie Morrison, D-Lake Forest, said some e-cigarettes are designed to look like school supplies, like highlighters, erasers and pencil sharpeners.

“This law will prohibit tobacco companies from pulling the wool over the eyes of educators and guardians whose job it is to keep kids safe,” said Morrison.

Elizabeth Hicks with the Consumer Choice Center said the assault on vaping may push some Illinoisans back to regular combustible cigarettes, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Read the full text here

Goodby, Gary! Crypto Advocates Celebrate End of SEC Chief’s Era

“You’re going to have the most pro-crypto president in the history of America,”  Eric Trump declared at the Bitcoin MENA conference on Dec. 10, as he discussed Donald Trump’s anticipated crypto policy.

Crypto industry leaders and advocates welcomed the potential change after a grueling four-year war with Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler.

Gensler, who resigned last month, badgered crypto companies with multiple lawsuits and controversial enforcement actions. He routinely allied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on crypto skepticism and regulatory issues.

Crypto enthusiasts accused Gensler of launching “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a campaign using litigation to achieve what could not be accomplished through regulation or legislation. The effort was modeled after the Obama-era Operation Chokepoint, which targeted gun dealers, payday lenders and sex workers.

“Gensler’s SEC was too quick to condemn new technology and financial products … and unwilling to offer simple guidance that would have given more clarity to consumers and investors,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center and a fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

The SEC’s version of Operation Chokehold encountered legal headaches almost immediately.

A federal judge dismissed Gensler’s attempt to classify Ripple’s XRP token as a security and denied the SEC’s appeal. A separate panel of judges criticized the SEC for its capricious and inconsistent policy of denying Grayscale’s proposed Bitcoin exchange-traded program after previously approving two others.

A significant setback occurred in 2023 when a federal judge threatened to sanction SEC attorneys for “materially false and misleading representations” in a suit against Wyoming-based crypto firm Digital Licensing Inc., also known as DEBT BOX. The SEC later dropped the suit.

Read the full text here

Bloomberg’s harmful interference in Vietnam threatens smoking reduction

Written by Alberto Gomez Hernandez, Policy Manager at the World Vapers Alliance

Vietnam is at a turning point in its fight against smoking. With over 17 million smokers and over a hundred thousand lives lost to smoking-related illnesses annually, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Yet, instead of adopting proven harm reduction strategies to help smokers quit, Vietnam passed a law in late November to introduce harmful bans on vaping and heated tobacco products after facing intense pressure from Bloomberg Philanthropies and its allies.

Bloomberg Philanthropies, led by Michael Bloomberg, has been a leading force behind global anti-vaping campaigns. While it claims to act in the name of public health, its policies often undermine harm reduction efforts and leave smokers with no viable alternatives to quit. Even more troubling is Bloomberg’s outsized influence over the World Health Organization (WHO), which pushes an anti-vaping agenda that ignores scientific evidence and fails to serve the public health interests of countries like Vietnam.

WHO and Bloomberg: An alliance of hypocrisy

The WHO, heavily funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, has consistently advocated for restrictive policies on vaping and other harm reduction tools. This influence has led to a one-fits-all prohibitionist approach that disregards the needs of different individuals and countries. In Vietnam, this alliance has manifested in pressure to establish bans on vaping and heat-not-burn, depriving millions of smokers of access to less harmful alternatives.

The hypocrisy of this relationship was recently highlighted in a Facebook post that revealed how officials from the World Health Organisation’s office in Vietnam thanked Bloomberg’s organizations for its generous support, who allegedly allowed them to provide technical assistance to the government to combat smoking and the uptake of other nicotine products. At the same time, the government has ignored the voices of millions of users of e-cigarettes in the country that managed to quit smoking thanks to these new devices. While they publicly demonize harm reduction tools, they fail to address the core issues of smoking and its devastating health impacts.

The push from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the WHO represents a form of regulatory colonialism, where foreign entities dictate policies without considering the unique challenges of individual countries. Vietnam deserves the autonomy to craft policies that prioritize the health and well-being of its people, not the agendas of external organizations.

The costs of prohibition

Prohibitionist policies, like those pushed by Bloomberg and the WHO, often backfire. In countries where vaping is banned or heavily restricted, consumers turn to unregulated black-market products, which lack safety standards and pose greater risks. These products are potentially dangerous and can bring higher costs to the Vietnamese healthcare system. When users do not turn to these products, they switch back to smoking, increasing the burden of smoking-related illnesses on the state budget. On the other hand, countries like the UK, Sweden, and New Zealand have demonstrated that regulating safer alternatives and promoting them as less harmful can reduce smoking rates, lower costs and ultimately save lives.

The Case for Harm Reduction in Vietnam

Harm reduction works. In Sweden, the adoption of snus—a safer nicotine alternative—has led the country to the brink of becoming the first smoke-free nation in the world. The United Kingdom and New Zealand have seen significant reductions in smoking rates by embracing vaping as a tool for quitting. These success stories show that evidence-based policies save lives.

Vietnam could follow this path. By regulating vaping and heated tobacco products, the government can provide smokers with safer options, reduce tobacco-related deaths, and alleviate the strain on its healthcare system. Regulation ensures product safety, restricts access for minors, and encourages adult smokers to make healthier choices.

It’s time for Vietnam to reject harmful foreign interference and embrace policies that put its citizens first. By adopting harm reduction strategies, Vietnam can lead the way in Southeast Asia and show the world that progress is possible when science and public health take precedence over ideology and hypocrisy.

SCOTUS Skeptical of an FDA Acting Arbitrarily Against Vape Products

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, a pivotal case concerning the Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of applications to market flavored nicotine vaping devices.

This is a landmark case for regulatory accountability related to public health and consumer choice.

At issue is whether the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when denying numerous premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA), as alleged by the manufacturers and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which accused the FDA of a “regulatory switcheroo”.

Elizabeth Hicks, US Affairs Analyst of the Consumer Choice Center, observed today’s arguments and weighed in on the consequences of the case for consumers,

“This case underscores the need for fairness and transparency in regulatory processes. The FDA’s blanket denials have placed enormous hurdles on firms providing harm-reduction alternatives, potentially decimating an industry that millions of adult consumers rely on to transition away from smoking traditional cigarettes.”

Read the full text here

Court shields restaurants from ownership reporting requirements

A federal court has blocked enforcement of a requirement that most restaurants and other small businesses report who owns them to the U.S. Department of the Treasury by Jan. 1. 

Failure to comply could have exposed covered companies to fines of up to $10,000, though the federal agency charged with policing the first-of-its-kind mandate indicated that it would provide an unofficial grace period to foster compliance. 

The requirement applies to most U.S. limited liability companies, or LLCs, as well as small corporations. Concerns that employ at least 20 people or have at least $5 million in revenues are exempted, as are 23 specific types of companies. 

Covered operations formed prior to Jan. 1, 2024, are required to reveal who controls them—what Treasury calls the beneficial ownership information, or BOI—in a filing submitted to the department no later than Jan. 1, 2025. Companies that were formed since Jan. 1 had 90 days after they were created to provide Treasury with the info.

Read the full text here

Commons Vote on Tobacco and Vapes Bill Slammed: A Step Back for Public Health

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) condemns Commons’ Vote to Pass the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. This legislation, if passed, threatens to reverse years of progress made in reducing tobacco consumption and puts public health at serious risk.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will reintroduce Sunak’s measures in prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to any adult born after 2009, as well as tighter restrictions on safer alternatives to combustible tobacco, such as vapes, heaters, and nicotine pouches.

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Country Associate at the CCC, stated, “These measures are unjust, unworkable and overreaching.

“The last thing we need in the battle to reduce smoking rates is to open an illegal getaway, which now thanks to the generational prohibition, will be easier than ever.”

Ahead of the vote, it was reported that the public is opposed to the prohibition by two to one.

Read the full text here

Justices Skeptical of FDA’s Actions on Vapes

The hearing took just over an hour. Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, a pivotal case concerning the Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of applications to market flavored nicotine vaping devices.

The case is about much more than saving the vaping industry; it is also a landmark case for regulatory accountability related to public health and consumer choice. A decision is expected by the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June.

At issue is whether the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when denying numerous premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA), as alleged by the manufacturers and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which accused the FDA of a “regulatory switcheroo”. 

Elizabeth Hicks, US Affairs Analyst of the Consumer Choice Center, stated that the case underscores the need for “fairness and transparency” in regulatory processes. “The FDA’s blanket denials have placed enormous hurdles on firms providing harm-reduction alternatives, potentially decimating an industry that millions of adult consumers rely on to transition away from smoking traditional cigarettes,” she said.

Read the full text here

en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org