Platforms Must Stop Online Scams
An Act to enact the Protection Against Online Fraud Act and to amend the Criminal Code
Summary
- Creates a duty for online platform operators (including social media and gaming services) to take reasonable steps to prevent, remove, and mitigate the spread of fraudulent content, and to notify any users who engaged with it, ensuring the notification is read.
- Requires operators to keep records of removed content and user notifications, and to publish transparency reports as prescribed by regulations.
- Establishes an offence for non-compliance with fines up to $1,000,000, with a due diligence defence.
- Amends the Criminal Code to make identity theft or fraud against vulnerable persons an aggravating factor at sentencing.
Builder Assessment
Protecting Canadians from online fraud is vital, but the bill’s broad, prescriptive obligations and vague definitions risk overreach that could burden innovators and reduce competitiveness. A targeted, risk-based approach with clear definitions and safe harbours would better protect users without stifling growth.
- The duty to ensure users have read notifications is invasive, operationally impractical, and likely to create privacy and security risks; replace with reasonable delivery attempts and auditability.
- Define fraudulent content narrowly (e.g., criminal fraud schemes, verified law-enforcement or court orders) and establish transparent due-process and appeal mechanisms for users and platforms.
- Introduce risk-based obligations, clear safe-harbour protections for good-faith efforts, and proportionate fines; exempt micro and small platforms or phase-in requirements.
- Standardize transparency reporting to minimize red tape and align with international norms; include a statutory review and measurable outcome targets (fraud loss reduction, response times).
- Coordinate with existing agencies and laws (Competition Bureau, RCMP cybercrime units, privacy law) to avoid duplication and conflicting obligations.
Question Period Cards
Who determines that content is fraudulent under this bill, what evidentiary standard applies, and what appeal process exists to prevent lawful speech and legitimate commerce from being swept up?
What is the expected compliance cost for Canadian startups and gaming platforms to implement read-confirmation notifications, record-keeping, and reporting, and will there be small-entity exemptions or thresholds?
How will the government ensure the requirement to ensure a user has read a notification does not force intrusive tracking, compromise encryption, or violate privacy law?
Principles Analysis
—
Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.
Reducing fraud can protect consumers and commerce, but broad, costly obligations on platforms may offset gains by raising operating costs and dampening growth.
✗
Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).
Mandates a duty of care, removal obligations, read-confirmation of notices, record-keeping, and reporting with significant fines—adding substantial compliance burden and regulatory risk.
✗
Drive national productivity and global competitiveness, including removing interprovincial trade barriers and improving labour mobility (one country, one market).
Compliance complexity and legal uncertainty could slow product development and disadvantage Canadian platforms against global competitors operating under clearer or lighter regimes.
—
Grow exports of Canadian products and resources, and move up the value chain by processing resources domestically rather than exporting them raw.
The bill does not directly target exports; any effects on digital service exports are indirect and uncertain.
✗
Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.
Ambiguity around what constitutes fraudulent content and strict obligations may chill startup formation, deter investment, and incentivize over-removal to avoid liability.
—
Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).
Shifts enforcement duties to private platforms but creates new oversight and reporting requirements; no clear evidence of improved public-sector efficiency or cost savings.
—
Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.
No tax measures are included.
—
Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.
Targets a real harm but via prescriptive compliance tools rather than a transformative, growth-oriented strategy; macroeconomic impact is unclear.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]
PartyMember of Parliament
StatusOutside the Order of Precedence
Last updatedN/A
TopicsTechnology and Innovation, Criminal Justice
Parliament45