Bill C‑18: forcing Big Tech to fund news—or else
In June 2023, the Canadian Parliament passed the Online News Act (Bill C-18), mandating major digital platforms to negotiate and pay Canadian news organizations for displaying their content. The Act empowers news outlets to trigger mandatory bargaining if platforms are deemed to have “significant bargaining power.” Its goal is to subsidize Canada’s failing media outlets.
Playing chicken with news access
Meta, the parent company of the Facebook and Instagram platforms took a hard line, heavily restricting news availability in Canada starting July 2023 to sidestep the law. As a result, millions of Canadians lost easy access to news via social media. Studies show a 90% drop in engagement on official news pages and a near-halving of traffic to smaller and Indigenous outlets. The move was cited by Reporters Without Borders in a press freedom downgrade. Meta’s resistance is seen not just as economic, but as asserting its autonomy over patchwork national regulation.
Google did a deal
Google initially warned it would remove Canadian news from Search, News, and Discover. However, by late 2023 it came to a deal with the Government of Canada: paying around $100 million annually into a collective fund administered by publishers, and absorbing a regulatory levy via the CRTC to cover the law’s administrative costs. This approach preserved visibility for Canadian news in search results but is a shakedown for the company. 
Collateral damage: Canadian News Consumption
The fallout hits consumers hard, particularly those relying on social platforms. With Meta blocking news URLs, many Canadians found their access to major news abruptly missing from their feeds. Though Google’s submission restored search visibility, the pandemic-shifted usage patterns, especially among younger audiences who get news via social media, meaning habits have already shifted. This tug-of-war underscores the tension between preserving editorial independence and ensuring discoverability in an attention economy tilted toward platform giants.
Market access and broader digital tax politics
The Bill C‑18 saga plays against a wider backdrop, most notably Canada’s digital services tax (DST), what was to be a 3% levy on Canadian-sourced digital revenue, enacted in June 2024. That DST was withdrawn in late June 2025 after threats of US tariffs and pressure from President Trump, resetting trade priorities. These developments highlight the Liberal government’s scheme: shaking down innovators in the name of elbows-up protectionism. At the same time, it also raises questions about Canada’s capacity to enforce digital regulations independently from broader trade pressures.
What does this mean to Canadians?
Canadian consumer awareness is becoming increasingly fractured. The algorithmic suppression of news content by Meta in response to government overreach, has fundamentally altered how Canadians access current events.
Social media, once a primary avenue for incidental news discovery, no longer plays that role effectively.
As a result, users are shifting their attention to direct news site visits or search-based discovery, particularly through Google.
In this new environment, digital literacy is more important than ever. Canadians must now actively seek out news rather than passively absorb it through their feeds, a shift that places more responsibility on individuals to remain informed.
For news organizations, the economic ground is shifting beneath their feet. Large, established publishers tend to benefit most from the Online News Act’s royalty mechanisms, securing stable funding streams through collective bargaining agreements.
However, smaller and local outlets have been disproportionately harmed. Some report losing over 50% of their traffic, particularly those that relied on social media platforms for reach. The system of collective bargaining, while designed to level the playing field, can mask an unequal distribution of funds, often favouring legacy players over emerging or independent journalism ventures.
Technology companies are recalibrating their strategies in response to these changes. Meta has taken a confrontational approach, blocking news entirely from its platforms in Canada to avoid complying with ham-fisted government mandates. This move is widely interpreted as a strategic signal: if governments impose pricing controls, Meta is willing to use its platform power to push back, even at the cost of user engagement.
Google, on the other hand, has opted for another path. By choosing to comply with the law and negotiating tribute to the Liberal government, it preserves its market access in Canada, suggesting that the cost of submission is often lower than the cost of a public regulatory standoff.
Lastly, market access is increasingly dependent on political alignment and broader geopolitical considerations. Canada’s effort to extract tax revenue for digital services through laws like Bill C-18 and the now-rescinded digital services tax (DST) has illustrated the limits of national sovereignty in the face of U.S. trade power. The swift withdrawal of the DST under pressure from the Trump administration revealed how easily economic leverage can override domestic policy decisions.
Meanwhile, Google’s behind-the-scenes coordination with U.S. trade representatives to influence Canadian law further highlights the blurry line between regulation and trade diplomacy. In this landscape, tech firms are navigating Canadian law and they’re managing complex relationships across international borders.
