<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Marketing Practices and Telemarketing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/marketing-practices-telemarketing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2013</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affleck greene mcmurtry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open market economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulated conduct defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Top Stories, Criminal, Class Actions &#038; Private Actions, Mergers, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, Related Developments, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Yellow Page&#8217; Business Directory Scam Fine Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In early 2012, four closely related companies and individuals associated with those companies  operated a  ‘yellow page’ business directory scam and were ordered to pay administrative monetary penalties over $8 million. The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal by one of those individuals who claimed he was deprived of a fair hearing due to the application&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mobile wars heat up: Telus denied injunction against Mobilicity</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mobilicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s deja vu all over again in the mobile telephony industry. On Wednesday, December 19, 2012, The British Columbia Supreme Court denied an application by Telus for an injunction restraining Mobilicity from running television commercials that compare its pricing plans with those of unnamed competitors. Grauer J. held that Telus&#8217; case, at best, &#8220;limps across&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC man extradited to US to face deceptive telemarketing charges</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[William Robertson must face charges in the United States that he was involved in a telemarketing scheme targeting elderly people in the US, a BC judge ordered recently. A joint FBI-RCMP investigation found evidence that employees at a Vancouver boiler room would tell victims they had won large sums of money, but had to pay&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud and telemarketing charges laid against five individuals</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on December 7 that fraud charges under the Criminal Code, and misleading advertising and deceptive telemarketing charges under the Competition Act have been laid against five individuals in connection with two Montreal telemarketing operations. One of the operations promoted government grants to American citizens. The other promoted the sale of office&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charges laid for Online Business Directory Schemers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 4, 2012, four companies and individuals are scheduled to appear in the Quebec Provincial Court following charges laid for deceptive telemarketing activities.  After a Competition Bureau investigation, criminal charges were laid against Solutions Executives Inc., Corporation Oxford-Data Inc., Sapphire Media Group and Platinum Direct Resources for violations of the Competition Act and the&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No defined limit on AMPs, court says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 20:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal upholding the Ontario Securities Commission power to impose administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, of up to $1 million suggests that even higher AMPs provided for in the Competition Act would also be upheld. (The case is Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission. For a summary of this&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court throws the book at &#8220;Yellow Page&#8221; business directory scam</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia Competition and Consumer Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business directory scam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four closely related companies operating a business directory scam were ordered to pay an administrative monetary penalty (&#8220;AMP&#8221;) of $8 million as well as pay restitution to everyone who paid them any money. Two individuals behind the companies were ordered to pay AMPs of $500,000 each, and a third individual was ordered to pay $35,000.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau can share information with foreign authorities, judge rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/bureau-can-share-information-with-foreign-authorities-judge-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-can-share-information-with-foreign-authorities-judge-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/bureau-can-share-information-with-foreign-authorities-judge-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search warrants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pre-trial rulings in the Competition Bureau's prosecution of David Stucky for an alleged lottery participations and prize promotions scam have held that the Bureau can share information obtained from search warrants with foreign competition authorities, and that public interest privilege cannot be established on a class basis.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/bureau-can-share-information-with-foreign-authorities-judge-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Sears decision: much needed clarification or just spinning our wheels?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Cantwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[binding guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundamental freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sears]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=346</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 24, 2005 , the Competition Tribunal determined that Sears Canada Inc. violated the ordinary selling price provisions of the Competition Act (subsection 74.01(3)).[1] In light of the recent success of the Competition Bureau in obtaining hefty administrative monetary penalties (&#8220;AMP&#8221;) under the ordinary selling price provisions, and the Bureau&#8217;s controversial non-binding Guidelines on&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
