A court challenge has put the streaming act on hold — but some U.S. companies are still sending money to Canadian funds (and no one knows why)

As the North American cultural sector awaits a court ruling that could force U.S. streaming companies to redirect millions in annual revenue to help produce Canadian content, money has already started to quietly flow to select Canadian funding agencies, The Wire Report has learned. Currently, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Spotify AB, and other streamers are fighting a CRTC order that would require all companies with annual revenues exceeding $25 million to allocate five per cent of Canadian revenues to cultural and broadcasting organizations that create domestic news and entertainment, including the Independent Local News Fund, the Indigenous Screen Office, the Canadian Media Fund, and the Community Radio Fund of Canada. The first payment was due on Aug. 31, 2025, and the CRTC expects the policy will annually generate an additional $200 million for the Canadian cultural industry. There’s no timeline for the Federal Court of Appeal to issue a decision, but the streamers won a temporary reprieve when the court issued a stay on all payments, pending a final decision. However, various sources have told The Wire Report some companies have started sending funds through an accounting firm to the non-profit agencies that the CRTC selected as recipients under the legislation. It should be noted there’s no publicly available list of qualifying corporations under the legislation. The ongoing court challenge also includes Netflix Inc., Paramount, Pluto Inc., and the Texas-based streamer CrunchyRoll, but analysis from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (of which several of these companies are members) suggests Walt Disney Co. (through Disney+), Roku Inc., Fox Corp.’s Tubi, and Alphabet Inc. (through YouTube) might also be captured. It is not clear which companies have opted to voluntarily send funding, though multiple sources said certain corporations involved in the litigious battle sent payments by the Aug. 31 deadline. The Wire Report is not revealing its sources, as they asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely about details that are not publicly available. “There’s some lack of clarity as to whether the stay applies to everybody in the universe” said one lawyer who represents a party in the court challenge. “I suspect there’s some folks who have been told by their legal counsel that they won’t be covered by the stay there may be some folks who, despite the stay…, are sending the money anyway.” Multiple organizations confirmed they had received payments under the legislation, despite the uncertain judicial result, but many either signed confidentiality agreements with participating companies or are otherwise unclear about the source of the funding. “It’s very opaque to us we don’t know who sends the money, or why, or what it represents,” said one funding official. “ there have been some that flowed funds through.” “, there’s a concern about whether or not that money can be distributed, based on waiting for the outcome of the Federal Court of Appeal decision.” As such, various non-profits have decided not to pass on any received payments, due to concerns that the funding might be clawed back, should the streamers be successful in court. “Because the broader CRTC decision remains under appeal, all amounts received are being held in reserve,” said Maxime Ruel, senior communications manager at the Canada Media Fund, in a statement. “We are taking a cautious approach while the matter is before , hence the funds being currently held in reserve.” Last year, Scott Shortliffe, the CRTC’s vice-president for broadcasting, told the House heritage committee that each company met the mandated deadline and transferred money into a trust — but some funds had already been sent to non-profits. “In fact, we have been told that, at the choice of the streamers, some has actually been distributed to some of the recipients,” Shortliffe said on Oct. 2. All funding agencies would not divulge whether they received payments in full, though some suggested that details will be made available shortly. “The Talent Fund received contributions through the Online Streaming Act,” wrote Joyce Richards, a strategic communications advisor at Telefilm Canada (which administers the Talent Fund) in an email. She added that the total payment will be published in the organization’s next annual report, set to be released during the summer. Meanwhile, Chip Sutherland, executive director of the Canadian Starmaker Fund, said his organization had only received a “tiny amount” from one company that has not participated in any court matters. “But it was a very small fraction of the expected total (less than 3 ),” said Sutherland. A March 4 report from Le Journal de Quebec suggested at least $35 million had already been transferred between the streaming companies. There remains a looming question regarding why any companies involved in the litigation have purposefully ignored a funding stay for which they successfully fought. After reaching out to all companies involved in the court case, The Wire Report either received no response or was directed to industry associations. One industry representative, who agreed to speak on a not-for-attribution basis, said they weren’t intimately familiar with the financial transactions of member companies. Instead, they criticized the CRTC’s approach to implementing the Online Streaming Act, formerly known as Bill C-11, arguing that it should not be incumbent on successful enterprises to subsidize cultural groups. In particular, the source said many streamers didn’t understand the inclusion of news-based organizations, and contended that most of the companies captured by the law had no connection to news or journalism. “Why are streaming companies paying for local news?” they asked. “It is understood there is a concern that… is under threat because of the broadcasting trajectory, but, in our view, that’s a government cultural policy.” In response, a representative from a news-based funding organization that received contributions said U.S. streamers “don’t understand the Canadian system and aren’t inclined to understand it.” “Within the Canadian system, you don’t just support the kind of programming that you do,” they said. “ are supported by BDUs (broadcasting distribution undertakings)..., some of which don’t have a broadcaster or news connection, but support news as distributors who benefit from the system.’ ‘What is being asked of the streamers is precisely the same thing it’s something they do not grasp because it’s not in their interest to grasp it.” Regardless, the streaming industry source said the legislation remains "discriminatory to non-Canadian services” and “massively hurts our members from their business model.” “The has come forward, without really understanding and listening to our arguments… and said you’ve got to pay at least five per cent of your gross revenue into funds to support artists,” the source continued. “But now, we’re just left dangling. Is it going to be further? Because this is a base contribution, which normally means we’re going up from here.” The CRTC has not disclosed whether the expected funding contribution could be upped, should the courts allow the initial order, though Vicky Eatrides, the regulator’s chair, hinted in a recent interview with The Wire Report that an increase is “in the realm of possibility.” The Online Streaming Act, and the subsequent CRTC base contribution decision, have become targets for U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration ahead of an upcoming review of North America’s free trade deal. Last year, Jamieson Greer, the White House’s top trade representative, told a joint congressional committee that “Canada insists on maintaining its Online Streaming Act, a law that discriminates against U.S. tech and media firms, as well as a number of other measures that restrict digital services trade.” Greer later said the “resolution” of this issue, among others, would be imperative for a successful review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, set to begin in July. dlegree@thewirereport.ca

A court challenge has put the streaming act on hold — but some U.S. companies are still sending money to Canadian funds (and no one knows why)

Broadcast |
By Davis Legree
|March 9, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

A court challenge has put the streaming act on hold — but some U.S. companies are still sending money to Canadian funds (and no one knows why)

Broadcast | By Davis Legree |March 9, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

CBC/Radio-Canada news channels now available on Amazon Prime

Q&A: CRTC chair opens door to raising base contribution level following court ruling on Online Streaming Act

TekSavvy calls on CRTC in second Cogeco copper removal dispute

Related Stories

Streamers challenge CRTC decision to publicly disclose financial information

Ericsson seeks to overturn certification of Steelworkers union to represent workers

Rogers appeals Competition Tribunal’s exclusion of details about commissioner’s alleged inaction in data plan dispute

Akash Broadcasting sues over CRTC denial of Calgary AM station

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Broadcast |
By Davis Legree
|March 9, 2026