The U.S. government has recently intensified its campaign against both of these pernicious Canadian laws. These being the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act respectively. This project is a direct answer to the fear that these laws have created within our American tech companies. Demand transparency. In response, lawmakers in Washington are ramping up their oversight.
Alfred Hermida, a professor of journalism at the University of British Columbia, who was previously active with the Sunshine Act, said both acts are critical. He thinks they’re just trying to promote local journalism and improve streaming services. A growing faction of U.S. Republicans is urging the Trump administration to do just that and put the squeeze on Canada. They think the Online Streaming Act is bad for U.S. interests and should have it repealed.
In a surprising turn, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney himself indicated that the federal government just might be willing to revisit the legislation. He has suggested that talks on possible repeal continue, acknowledging the growing firestorm on the U.S. side. A government spokesperson confirmed that “implementation of the Online News Act is still ongoing,” suggesting that Canada remains committed to seeing the act through, despite external pressures.
Perhaps most striking is the large technology companies’ concerted and strong opposition to both the Online News Act and the Online Streaming Act. They claim that these laws threaten to upend their business models in Canada. The fight surrounding these state level legislative efforts is made more complex by the increased trade tensions at the federal level. U.S. President Donald Trump had already withdrawn the United States from a proposed trade deal with Canada. He cited as his motivation for the move a proposed Canadian digital services tax that would affect many American tech companies, which he linked to the ONA and OSA.
Finally, critics of the U.S. stance argue that this opposition reflects a desire to protect corporate profits over climate justice. They claim that this true motivation trumps any real concern for press freedom. Hampson, an analyst in this field, stated, “What we’re seeing is not what I would call honest criticism. It’s a calculated campaign to protect Big Tech’s profits.” He further elaborated on the nature of the criticisms directed at Canadian legislation, calling them misleading: “I would say, to put it bluntly, the report takes tiny grains of truth and spins them into a full-blown web of deception and misinformation that is perhaps worthy of George Orwell himself.”
Hermida agreed with these statements, claiming that the intent of the legislation is to protect press freedom and not restrict it. He remarked on how these acts are being misrepresented, stating that they “are actually promoting press freedom, but presenting them in a way as if they’re curtailing press freedom.” He explained the effects of a “MAGA lens on press freedom in Canada.” He proposed that American political storylines may be warping how Canadians are perceiving their own efforts.
Canada and the U.S. are deeply involved in these discussions. Both countries need to address these legislative challenges and consider their impact on domestic trade and journalism.
