Google kills ad fee in response to Canada removing digital services tax
A year ago, Google said it would put in place a 2.5 per cent surcharge for ads displayed in Canada in response to the tax, effective October 2024.
A Google spokesperson says the company has now stopped charging the fee, and will refund previously collected funds once the federal government officially repeals legislation that implemented the tax.
1:36
Canada enacts controversial digital services tax
The digital services tax would have imposed a three per cent levy on tech giants that generate revenue from Canadian users.
Story continues below advertisement
But just before an initial retroactive payment was due June 30, Prime Minister Mark Carney's government said it would eliminate the tax.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
The move came after U.S. President Donald Trump put a halt on bilateral trade talks over the levy.
The tax would have applied to companies that operate online marketplaces, online advertising services and social media platforms, and those that earn revenue from some sales of user data.
The first retroactive payment would have left U.S. companies, such as Google, Amazon and Uber, on the hook for an estimated total bill of US$2 billion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Court rules Mississippi's social media age verification law can go into effect
A Mississippi law that requires social media users to verify their ages can go into effect, a federal court has ruled. A tech industry group has pledged to continue challenging the law, arguing it infringes on users' rights to privacy and free expression. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overruled a decision by a federal district judge to block the 2024 law from going into effect. It's the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country. Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued in a court filing defending the law that steps such as age verification for digital sites could mitigate harm caused by 'sex trafficking, sexual abuse, child pornography, targeted harassment, sextortion, incitement to suicide and self-harm, and other harmful and often illegal conduct against children.' Attorneys for NetChoice, which brought the lawsuit, have pledged to continue their court challenge, arguing the law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. The industry group, which has filed similar lawsuits in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Utah, represents some of the country's most high-profile technology companies, including Google, which owns YouTube; Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. In a written statement, Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the group is 'very disappointed' in the decision to let Mississippi's law go into effect and is 'considering all available options.' Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'NetChoice will continue to fight against this egregious infringement on access to fully protected speech online,' Taske said. 'Parents — not the government — should determine what is right for their families.' ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
CTV News
28 minutes ago
- CTV News
Trump's latest demand: Washington football and Cleveland baseball teams should change names back
CLEVELAND — U.S. President Donald Trump wants Washington's football franchise and Cleveland's baseball team to revert to their former names. Trump said on Truth Social on Sunday morning that 'The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team. There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to say. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. Guardians president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change. 'We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us,' he said. Both teams have had their new names since the 2022 seasons. Washington dropped Redskins after the 2019 season and was known as the Washington Football Team for two years before moving to Commanders. Cleveland announced in December 2020 they would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out 'Chief Wahoo' as its primary logo. The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of national discussions about institutions and teams to drop logos and names considered racist. The Guardians are the fifth name for Cleveland's baseball franchise. It joined the American League in 1901 as one of the eight charter franchises as the Blues. It switched to Bronchos a year later and used the Naps from 1903 through 1914 before moving to Indians in 1915. Washington started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later. Washington and Cleveland share another thing in common. David Blitzer is a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and holds a minority stake in the Guardians. Joe Reedy, The Associated Press
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
Epstein files: Unsealing transcripts likely to disappoint, ex-prosecutors say
A Justice Department request to unseal grand jury transcripts in the prosecution of chronic sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend is unlikely to produce much, if anything, to satisfy the public's appetite for new revelations about the financier's crimes, former federal prosecutors say. Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, called the request in the prosecutions of Epstein and imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell 'a distraction.' 'The president is trying to present himself as if he's doing something here and it really is nothing,' Krissoff told The Associated Press in a weekend interview. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the request Friday, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying 'transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.' Story continues below advertisement The request came as the administration sought to contain the firestorm that followed its announcement that it would not be releasing additional files from the Epstein probe despite previously promising that it would. Epstein killed himself at age 66 in his federal jail cell in August 2019, a month after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, while Maxwell, 63, is serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed after her December 2021 sex trafficking conviction for luring girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief. Naftalis said Southern District prosecutors present just enough to a grand jury to get an indictment but 'it's not going to be everything the FBI and investigators have figured out about Maxwell and Epstein.' 'People want the entire file from however long. That's just not what this is,' he said, estimating that the transcripts, at most, probably amount to a few hundred pages. 1:40 Trump denies WSJ report he wrote Jeffrey Epstein a birthday note about a 'wonderful secret' 'It's not going to be much,' Krissoff said, estimating the length at as little as 60 pages 'because the Southern District of New York's practice is to put as little information as possible into the grand jury.' Story continues below advertisement 'They basically spoon feed the indictment to the grand jury. That's what we're going to see,' she said. 'I just think it's not going to be that interesting. … I don't think it's going to be anything new.' Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Both ex-prosecutors said that grand jury witnesses in Manhattan are usually federal agents summarizing their witness interviews. That practice might conflict with the public perception of some state and federal grand jury proceedings, where witnesses likely to testify at a trial are brought before grand juries during lengthy proceedings prior to indictments or when grand juries are used as an investigatory tool. In Manhattan, federal prosecutors 'are trying to get a particular result so they present the case very narrowly and inform the grand jury what they want them to do,' Krissoff said. Krissoff predicted that judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases will reject the government's request. With Maxwell, a petition is before the U.S. Supreme Court so appeals have not been exhausted. With Epstein, the charges are related to the Maxwell case and the anonymity of scores of victims who have not gone public is at stake, although Blanche requested that victim identities be protected. 'This is not a 50-, 60-, 80-year-old case,' Krissoff noted. 'There's still someone in custody.' Story continues below advertisement She said citing 'public intrigue, interest and excitement' about a case was likely not enough to convince a judge to release the transcripts despite a 1997 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said judges have wide discretion and that public interest alone can justify releasing grand jury information. Krissoff called it 'mind-blowingly strange' that Washington Justice Department officials are increasingly directly filing requests and arguments in the Southern District of New York, where the prosecutor's office has long been labeled the 'Sovereign District of New York' for its independence from outside influence. 'To have the attorney general and deputy attorney general meddling in an SDNY case is unheard of,' she said. Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and Fordham Law School criminal law professor, said judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases may take weeks or months to rule. 'Especially here where the case involved witnesses or victims of sexual abuse, many of which are underage, the judge is going to be very cautious about what the judge releases,' she said. 1:51 Trump plagued by MAGA backlash from handling of Epstein files Bader said she didn't see the government's quest aimed at satisfying the public's desire to explore conspiracy theories 'trumping — pardon the pun — the well-established notions of protecting the secrecy of the grand jury process.' Story continues below advertisement 'I'm sure that all the line prosecutors who really sort of appreciate the secrecy and special relationship they have with the grand jury are not happy that DOJ is asking the court to release these transcripts,' she added. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, called Trump's comments and influence in the Epstein matter 'unprecedented' and 'extraordinarily unusual' because he is a sitting president. He said it was not surprising that some former prosecutors are alarmed that the request to unseal the grand jury materials came two days after the firing of Manhattan Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, who worked on the Epstein and Maxwell cases. 'If federal prosecutors have to worry about the professional consequences of refusing to go along with the political or personal agenda of powerful people, then we are in a very different place than I've understood the federal Department of Justice to be in over the last 30 years of my career,' he said. Krissoff said the uncertain environment that has current prosecutors feeling unsettled is shared by government employees she speaks with at other agencies as part of her work in private practice. 'The thing I hear most often is this is a strange time. Things aren't working the way we're used to them working,' she said.
