
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
A person browses a television menu showing icons for streaming services Netflix and Amazon Prime in a photo illustration made in Toronto on Friday, March 22, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Giordano Ciampini
OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news.
The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news.
The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto.
Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news.
In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money.
In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act.
Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content.
Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.'
It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.'
Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay.
The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming.
Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations.
It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news.
'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said.
'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.'
In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news.
'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said.
'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.'
A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments.
'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said.
'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.'
The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.'
'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added.
The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers.
The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies.
In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation.
Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances.
While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system.
Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CTV News
33 minutes ago
- CTV News
Chinese shipyard chosen to build new BC Ferries
Vancouver Watch BC Ferries has chosen a Chinese state-run company to build four new vessels – a move that drew sharp criticism.


Globe and Mail
43 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
The Best EV Stock to Invest $1,000 in Right Now
If you're looking at the electric vehicle (EV) space, you have probably examined Tesla very closely. That makes sense, given that the company basically created the EV market, forcing established automakers to take electric vehicles seriously for the first time. But Tesla is a fairly mature business at this point. If you have $1,000 to invest, you might want to consider a company that seems to be successfully following Tesla's playbook. That stock is EV truck maker Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN). What does Rivian do? Rivian makes electric vehicles, just like Tesla and, at this point, just about every major automaker. But Rivian isn't trying to be all things to all people -- it's highly focused on making EV trucks and SUVs. This is a niche that allows the company to differentiate its product to some degree. There are two notable things going on behind the scenes here. Rivian has inked key partnerships to support its business. One is with online retailer Amazon for delivery trucks. This relationship has been a vital support early in Rivian's existence, as it provided both a customer for the company's technology and a proof of concept for the world. In fact, when Rivian ran into supply issues for its consumer vehicles after a factory upgrade in 2024, it was able to shift production to Amazon trucks to keep its business moving forward. Rivian also has an important partnership with Volkswagen, which is providing money that Rivian is using to invest in its technology. In exchange, Volkswagen will get to use Rivian tech in its vehicles. This is a win/win, since Volkswagen hasn't been as aggressive as its peers with EVs, and it will give Rivian a customer for its technology. One of Rivian's key goals is to sell its technology to other companies. Rivian is about to follow Tesla in an important way All that said, Rivian has been following Tesla's basic playbook. It started out with very expensive consumer models. High-end trucks are a great offering, and Rivian has award-winning trucks, but the market is a bit limited. There are only so many people who can afford to buy expensive vehicles. The benefit of starting at the high end is that it brings in more revenue during the start-up phase, when costs are extremely high. After all, Rivian, like Tesla, had to build a capital-intensive manufacturing business from the ground up. That was the key goal through 2023. In 2024 and 2025, however, Rivian has shifted gears to reducing costs and working toward profitability. That process has involved, as noted above, improvements at the company's factory. Costs have come down, with Rivian producing a gross profit in the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2025. This is where the next big goal comes in. Like Tesla, Rivian is now looking to introduce a truck priced for the mass market, called the R2. With costs coming down, the big goal is to sell more trucks. That will allow Rivian to spread its manufacturing costs over more vehicles and further help it work toward a sustainable profit. Given the EV maker's strong execution so far, it seems highly likely that it will achieve this next goal. Helping it along is that partnership with Volkswagen, which is investing billions in Rivian with each milestone it reaches. That makes achieving the next goal that much more likely. Rivian is a high-risk investment To be fair, Rivian is still losing money, and it will likely continue to do so for a while longer. So this isn't a stock that conservative investors will likely want to buy. But if you are a bit more aggressive, Rivian looks like it could be on the cusp of a very important business shift. That makes it one of the best EV stocks to invest in, with $1,000 netting you around 70 shares of this exciting auto industry upstart. Should you invest $1,000 in Rivian Automotive right now? Before you buy stock in Rivian Automotive, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Rivian Automotive wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $660,341!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $874,192!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is999% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to173%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon and Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends Volkswagen Ag. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
China tariffs affecting B.C.'s spot prawn season
Vancouver Watch A 25 per cent tariff on Canadian seafood is having a major impact on spot prawn exports.