Tribunal rejects Google's constitutional challenge in online advertising case

"The penalty the bureau is proposing would either be three times the value of the benefit derived from Google's allegedly anticompetitive practices or, "if that amount cannot be reasonably determined," three per cent of Google's annual worldwide gross revenues. Google said that could leave it paying up to $91-billion - a sum it described as "shocking, gargantuan" and "unprecedented in Canadian history" because it is hundreds of times larger than the biggest criminal fines ever imposed."

"Google also argued the fine is so big that it would violate the company's constitutional rights because it's akin to a "true penal consequence" - a punishment more in line with how criminal offences are treated. The Competition Bureau fought back, saying Google's charter rights had not been breached and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue a fine that qualifies as a true penal consequence."

"In his order dismissing Google's challenge, he said the fine the company could face is "hypothetical at best." While he conceded that it could be "very large," he said those kinds of charges "may be necessary to deter non-compliance.""

Canada's Competition Tribunal rejected Google's constitutional challenge to a proposed monetary penalty for allegedly abusing its dominant position in online advertising. The Competition Bureau seeks to impose a fine equal to either three times the value of benefits from anticompetitive practices or three percent of Google's annual worldwide gross revenues, potentially reaching $91 billion. Google argued this unprecedented penalty violates constitutional rights by functioning as a criminal punishment rather than a civil remedy. Judge Andrew Little dismissed the challenge, ruling the fine remains hypothetical and that large penalties may be necessary to deter non-compliance. The tribunal determined it has jurisdiction to impose such penalties without breaching charter rights.

Read at The Globe and Mail