Canadian internet companies say their livelihood is dependent on changes to the Copyright Act — but Ottawa hasn’t taken action

On its surface, the ISP Coalition is an unusual lobbying group. It is a team effort composed of telecom giants that are more comfortable as sparring partners — Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc., and Telus Corp. — as well as a slate of smaller, independent internet carriers that rarely find themselves aligned with the bigger players. But the Canadian telecommunications industry has come together with a singular focus. For more than two years, company officials and lobbyists have been working to persuade the government to alter a specific part of Canada’s copyright legislation, which they argue leaves them vulnerable to massive annual penalties (potentially totalling billions of dollars) without any recourse. The cross-company collaboration stems from the country’s approach to handling potential copyright violations, often referred to as the Notice and Notice regime. Under the system, anyone concerned that they might be a victim of copyright infringement can notify the alleged violator’s internet service provider (ISP), who is then responsible for notifying the end-user. Unlike the U.S. system, known as Notice and Takedown, Canadian law makes ISPs responsible for identifying and passing along copyright concerns, but the onus of taking someone to court and getting the content removed is on the copyright-holder. However, in order to ensure that ISPs hold up their end of the Notice and Notice system, the Copyright Act also includes statutory penalties for companies that fail to provide notice of alleged copyright violation. Under the law, these fines can vary between $5,000 and $10,000. In the grand scheme of things, this may appear to be a drop in the bucket for massive telcos like Rogers and Bell, both of which generate annual revenue upwards of $20 billion. However, Bell is currently facing a $400 million lawsuit for its alleged failure to comply with the Notice and Notice system — and other Canadian ISPs worry they could soon be on the hook for similarly jarring sums. Copyright 101 At the core of the ISPs’ efforts is an ongoing debate whether these penalties apply for each copyrighted work that was allegedly pirated or each failed notice. As an example, should Rogers be required to pay $10,000 each time they fail to notify someone who illegally downloaded Star Wars? Or, should it be required to pay the fine one time regardless of how many times Star Wars was downloaded? It remains an open question before Canada’s judiciary. And the stakes cannot get much higher for Canadian internet companies because, if it is determined they must pay for each individual notice, they could face hundreds of millions or potentially billions in annual fines. According to a letter sent to the federal government by the ISP Coalition, larger internet companies received an average of 1.2 million notices in 2023, while smaller ISPs were sent 77,000. Telcos say they acquiesce to the overwhelming majority of these notices, but some fall through the cracks — oftentimes because they have determined the initial notice to be invalid — meaning, on average, only 82 per cent of notices are sent to the end-user. “For large ISPs: assuming the alleged failure rate is 18%, if was misinterpreted so that damages are applied to every single notice that could not be forwarded this would amount to statutory damages of up to $2.1 billion per ISP in 2023,” read the letter obtained by The Wire Report. “Even if large ISPs were only found liable for ‘legitimate’ claims of failed obligations at a failure rate of 1%, the result would be damages up to $120 million per ISP per year.” The letter adds that smaller companies could be charged annual fines up to $420 million, which would bankrupt several independent ISPs. “Could we continue ? The problem is that, potentially not,” said Andy Kaplan-Myrth, vice-president of regulatory and carrier affairs at TekSavvy Solutions Inc. “If this is how the damages are interpreted by a court, then they would get to a level that would threaten any ISP.” “It’s not theoretical, it’s not exaggerated, but the reason that it’s so staggering is because are essentially unlimited.” A cross-examination According to Kaplan-Myrth, these existing gaps in copyright law have created “another revenue stream” for rightsholders, who he alleges are maliciously pursuing litigation against ISPs to pad their bottom lines. “There’s potentially so much available for copyright enforcers to misuse this,” he said. “They’re going to keep using it, at the very least as a threat for leverage of other litigation.” But for those who hold copyright, these penalties are a key protection against what would otherwise be “unlimited piracy.” One industry insider told The Wire Report that it “wouldn’t make sense” for ISPs to only pay the fine for each work. “In my view, you need to have a hammer to get the ISPs attention… and you don’t get peoples’ attention for $10,000,” they said. In publicly available court documents, Bell has been sued for nearly $400 million on the basis that it largely ignored repeated requests to improve its copyright compliance. Aird Berlis, the law firm representing several movie studios suing Bell, suggested the telco did not respond to a majority of submitted notices and, for years, the company had no Notice and Notice system in place for subscribers of its subsidiary Virgin Mobile. In a 2021 letter to Aird Berlis, Bell’s counsel “categorically” denied the suit’s charges and offered to “cooperate” with the copyright holders to “mitigate damages.” Aird Berlis responded with a letter that said its client, Millenium Funding Inc., which is behind films like Hellboy, Olympus Has Fallen, and The Expendables franchise, “does not have an obligation to mitigate its damages.” “Further, Bell Canada’s refusal to deal with these matters in a timely fashion has already caused damages that cannot be compensated for by sending late notices,” offered the letter. The industry insider, who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely, noted that this is only the latest example of copyright holders bringing litigation against ISPs. They said the internet companies are more concerned about whether larger rightsholders start following suit. “High-notice senders, like the entertainment industry, could bankrupt every ISP in Canada six times over,” they said. “But the law has some consequences," they added, noting that they would expect the ruling judge to implement a cap on financial penalties. In response, TekSavvy’s Kaplan-Myrth said there is no indication that any ISP would try to avoid responsibility under the Notice and Notice regime, even if the statutory penalties were lowered or determined to operate on a per work basis. “We’re talking about Rogers and Bell? The same companies that have been chasing piracy litigation of their own… in order to enforce copyright?” asked Kaplan-Myrth. “These are not companies that have any interest in allowing piracy.” “Even small ISPs, like TekSavvy, have always done our best to comply with the Notice and Notice regime, even though it’s a very complicated regime that we have had to build systems to comply with.” In the U.S., a recent Supreme Court decision found internet services are not financially liable for their subscribers’ piracy, a landmark ruling in American copyright law. Before court, Bell has argued these movie studios had “weaponized the regime” and later countersued Aird Berlis for, among other things, “misuse of copyright,” a legal tenet that has never been acknowledged in Canadian case law. The courts have not yet made a decision on the initial lawsuit against Bell, nor the countersuit facing Aird Berlis. However, the appeals court gave recognition to Bell’s “misuse of copyright” defence and allowed the company to amend its case. “I am surprised have entertained the argument of copyright misuse,” said Lucie Guibault, a law professor at Dalhousie University. “There’s no court in Canada that has ever recognized the argument of copyright misuse.” “It’s an American doctrine available in very strict circumstances… usually in a competition environment.” Meanwhile, Cameron Hutchison, a professor specializing in copyright law at the University of Alberta, said “both sides have a point” in the Notice and Notice debate. “You have these copyright trolls and businesses that do this,” he told The Wire Report. “They look at the legal system and try to find a way to make money on ambiguities in the law.” “They send out tons of infringement notices… and they have a big payday at the end of it. That’s a problem.” Hutchison added that “courts are aware of this problem.” “They’re quite aware that this continues to happen,” he said. Where is Ottawa? It should be noted the country’s most powerful ISPs have been lobbying the government on changes to the Copyright Act since 2024 and, so far, nothing has changed. “ understands the concern and they take it seriously,” said Kaplan-Myrth. “I think they’re just being extra cautious about it.” Representatives of the ISP have met with senior bureaucratic and political officials from Canadian Heritage, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), and Finance Canada in recent years, though no changes have been introduced. After the latest iteration of the Copyright Act received Royal Assent in 2012, parliamentarians were bound to periodical reviews of the legislation every five years, but the last such exercise took place in 2019. Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller’s (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs, Que.) office and the Department of Canadian Heritage redirected The Wire Report’s questions to Industry Minister Melanie Joly (Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Que.), whose office did not provide a response. In a statement, a spokesperson for ISED said Ottawa was "committed to ensuring that the Act remains responsive to the modern needs of creators, rightsholders and consumers, while reflecting the realities of today’s digital world," but refused to commit to reforms, hence the ongoing government relations campaign. “This is an unusual lobbying effort because companies who are not normally aligned on almost any issue are aligned on this one,” said Kaplan-Myrth. “The entire industry has essentially come together with the same message and the same proposal.” “ we need a simple, clear amendment to just clarify what was always intended by copyright legislation.” dlegree@thewirereport.ca *Editor's note: This story has been updated to include a response from an Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada spokesperson.

Canadian internet companies say their livelihood is dependent on changes to the Copyright Act — but Ottawa hasn’t taken action

Court |
By Davis Legree
|March 26, 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

Canadian internet companies say their livelihood is dependent on changes to the Copyright Act — but Ottawa hasn’t taken action

Court | By Davis Legree |March 26, 2026

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Push for improved cell connectivity crosses party lines

Bell brings customized Call Control to fibre customers

‘Second-classness’ in wholesale internet: Independent ISPs hope Bell-Telus dispute will prompt service standards reform

Related Stories

‘Do we need this?’: Artists, musicians and writers question federal approach to AI at national summit

Canadian media warns of ‘democratic deficit’ amidst local news closures, AI content ‘theft,’ and big tech’s capture of ad market

IP lawyer says current copyright framework enough to tackle AI issues, though Miller suggests changes ‘may’ be needed

Canadians concerned about AI’s impact on environment, children: federal consultation

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Court |
By Davis Legree
|March 26, 2026