I woke up early on Monday morning for 14 interviews focused on digital sovereignty on CBC Radio stations across the country (here’s the Manitoba version). Most opened the discussion by asking what digital sovereignty means. My answer was that it is about choice: the ability of Canadians to choose the digital services they use and the ability to ensure that Canadian law applies to those services here. Several hosts then cited the emerging Google Maps controversy, in which U.S. users now see “Lake America” while Canadians continue to see “Lake Ontario”. The reference made sense in the moment, but on reflection, I don’t think the mapping case is an example of digital sovereignty gone wrong. This may not be a popular opinion, but the incident demonstrates the opposite since Canadian rules are being respected domestically and large Internet platforms are refraining from using their power to decide which rules to follow.
News
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain
The proposed settlement between Meta and 51 U.S. state attorneys general, filed last week and still subject to court approval, ranks among the biggest developments in technology litigation in years, featuring both big money and big design changes. The settlement is limited to the participating states, but it is likely to have significant implications for Canadian users and for legislative initiatives such as Bill C-34. Whether Meta extends the measures voluntarily, in response to similar Canadian lawsuits, or as part of a legislated duty to act responsibly in Bill C-34, changes are likely to make their way into Canada. This post highlights key provisions of the settlement and reviews the implications for three Canadian policy concerns: legislation vs. litigation, age verification or age assurance, and privacy.
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences
The legislative efforts to combat online harms in Canada have focused chiefly on platform responsibility, with Bill C-34 reintroducing a regulated duty to act responsibly. An Ontario court recently considered another avenue to address harms that instead targets influencers who weaponize their audiences. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision that extends the tort of Internet harassment into networked harassment, in which influencers or those with large online audiences encourage their followers to target individuals. In Miller v. Ahn, the court granted an interim injunction against a social media creator with more than 100,000 followers who had mobilized her audience against a Toronto employment lawyer. The actions led to fake reviews of her firm, threatening phone calls and messages, and antisemitic abuse that was directed at the lawyer’s perceived Jewish and Israeli identity.
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle
French language policy has emerged as a hot-button issue in the breakdown of trade talks between Canada and the U.S. While the U.S. has denied that French is a concern, Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed to U.S. demands involving culture and the French language in his weekend press conference and Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S. Mark Wiseman confirmed that the dispute included the levels of French-language content on U.S.-based streaming services. My post this week speculated that U.S. objections likely extend beyond the CRTC’s discoverability requirements arising from the Online Streaming Act to Quebec’s Bill 109, which is a provincial version of the law focused on French-language content on streaming services. I argued during the legislative process that the Quebec law is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unworkable, since it encroaches on federal jurisdiction over broadcasting. If the law takes effect, a constitutional challenge will follow, and the federal government will almost surely support it. In other words, the law now cited as evidence that Canada would not cave on culture is likely to be opposed by both the U.S. and Canadian governments, albeit for very different reasons.
Culture Off the Table? What the Collapsed Canada-U.S. Trade Talks Reveal About the Carney Government’s Cultural Policy
The Canada-U.S. trade talks collapsed on Friday night with 50 percent tariffs on billions of dollars in Canadian goods now in effect and Prime Minister Mark Carney promising dollar-for-dollar retaliation by early next month, supported by a strong sense of the need to defend Canadian sovereignty. The push for “digital trade alignment”, which I unpacked in a post last week, does not appear to have been a major source of contention, though Carney pointed to late U.S. demands on culture, autos, and sovereignty in a press conference over the weekend and the Globe reports that the inclusion of discoverability rule reforms was rejected by Canadian negotiators. But with the major outlines apparently agreed to, how can Canadians reconcile general agreement on digital policy with the government’s insistence that it would not budge on cultural protections?
Recent Posts
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 279: My Keynote on Digital Sovereignty: Control, Choice, and Connection
