Stretch your spending with these 10 Amazon deals
The Curator independently decides what topics and products we feature. When you purchase an item through our links, we may earn a commission. Promotions and products are subject to availability and retailer terms.
With Amazon's endless flood of deals, it can feel like you need a full-time job just to keep up. Everything's discounted, but how do you cut through the noise and find the offers that actually stretch your budget without sacrificing quality? Take a breath – we've done the legwork for you.
Our keen-eyed deal hunters sifted through the sea of flash sales, limited-time offers, and 'too good to be true' prices to bring you the best bargains Amazon has to offer right now. Because while the site's sale game is strong, spotting the truly smart buys – that you'll feel proud snagging – is a skill worth mastering.
Story continues below advertisement
Grace and Stella Eye Patches
These eye patches are like a quick espresso shot for tired eyes. They smooth away puffiness and dark circles, giving you an instant boost that's perfect for those slow mornings. $19.95 on Amazon (was $25.95)
One Piece Swim Suit
This one-piece swimsuit checks all the boxes with its anti-fading, quick-dry fabric and figure-flattering ruched design. Features adjustable straps and a subtle V-neck. You're ready for any beach or poolside moment. Grab it while it's 63 per cent off! $14.99 on Amazon (was $39.99)
Philips Sonicare 4100 Power Toothbrush
The Philips Sonicare 4100 is the kind of toothbrush that quietly makes your routine better. It cleans thoroughly without being harsh, and the pressure sensor keeps your gums in check. Bonus: it lasts for weeks on a single charge, so you don't have to think twice. $54.95 on Amazon (was $84.99)
Story continues below advertisement
VITAL PROTEINS Bovine Collagen Peptides Powder
This collagen powder is the kind of easy add-on that fits right into your day. It dissolves quickly, doesn't change the taste of your drinks, and keeps things simple with just pure bovine collagen. Bonus: no weird fillers or added sugars to worry about. $49.45 on Amazon (was $58.18)
Wireless Smart Security Camera
This little camera does more than you'd expect – it keeps an eye on your home and lets you check in from anywhere, right on your phone. The best part? It runs for up to two years on a pair of AA batteries, so you can set it and pretty much forget it. Grab it while it's 50 per cent off! $164.99 on Amazon (was $329.99)
MANSCAPED® The Lawn Mower
For grooming that's precise, I always suggest a tool that's easy to handle yet powerful enough to get the job done – like the Lawn Mower from MANSCAPED®, which balances comfort and performance perfectly. $99.99 on Amazon (was $124.99)
Story continues below advertisement
Native Jefferson Child
These shoes are the ultimate grab-and-go for family adventures. Lightweight, easy to clean, and built tough enough to keep up with every wild backyard or beach day. $35 on Amazon (was $50)
DEWALT 20V MAX* Drywall Screw Gun
With a brushless motor and adjustable speed settings, this drywall screw gun is built for efficiency and control. Its four tool modes and adjustable nosecone make it easy to handle any job while ensuring screws are driven to the perfect depth every time. $169 on Amazon (was $229)
Bose QuietComfort Bluetooth Earbuds
These wireless earbuds bring epic sound to everyday moments with world-class noise cancellation and rich, detailed audio. With a secure fit, long battery life, and seamless device switching, they're built to keep up – no matter where the day takes you. $219 on Amazon (was $248)
Story continues below advertisement
Ergonomics Office Chair
This ergonomic chair is one of those no-brainer upgrades – just in time for father's day! It fits right into your setup and makes long hours feel a lot less taxing. Bonus: the breathable mesh keeps things cool even when work heats up. $161.48 on Amazon (was $249.98)
You may also like:
Get weekly The Curator news
Be in the know before you buy - Stay up to date with the latest trends, get expert recommendations, tips, and shopping guides. Sign up for weekly The Curator newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Greenworks 40V 16-inch Cordless Lawn Mower – $326.11
eufy X10 Pro Omni Robot Vacuum and Mop – $764.98
Laptop Screen Extender – $275.22
Pampers Diapers Newborn – $29.97
Philips 3200 Series Fully Automatic Espresso Machine – $749.99
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
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
Vancouver Sun
12 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
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. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 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. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
National Post
12 hours ago
- National Post
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
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. Article content 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. Article content Article content Article content The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Article content Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content Article content Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' Article content Article content 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.' Article content 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. Article content 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.
