Published
June 10, 2026
Canada announced last week that it is reassessing the implementation of its Online Streaming Act and directing the CRTC to review its May 21 order regulating online streaming platforms. This is the right call; It is a welcome move to see Canada move away from rigid revenue mandates and content-promotion requirements that would unfairly burden U.S. streaming services. USTR and other government officials deserve recognition for sustained engagement that helped steer the conversation toward a more balanced framework.
As streaming platforms have become a gateway for global entertainment, governments are turning to them as tools to advance cultural goals and requiring platforms to finance domestic production, while shifting the playing field to favor local content. Canada's reversal reflects a growing recognition that cultural objectives can be advanced without measures that raise consumer prices, impose rigid one-size-fits-all mandates, or single out U.S.-headquartered services for discriminatory treatment. The Chamber has long made this argument, pushing for an approach that is evenhanded, technology-neutral, and prioritizes the broader bilateral trade relationship.
Canada is not alone in having pursued this path. Australia has already gone further, enacting legislation last November requiring major streaming platforms to spend at least 10% of their Australian program expenditure, or 7.5% of revenue, on local content, with huge penalties for non-compliance. Germany is moving in the same direction, with a cabinet-approved proposal requiring streamers to reinvest 8% of their German revenue in domestic film and television production. Both measures are drawing scrutiny from U.S. trade officials, and for good reason.
These policies and others like them share a common flaw: they are designed to extract value from U.S. companies under the guise of cultural promotion. Whatever the stated rationale, the practical effect is to impose discriminatory financial burdens on American services while shielding domestic competitors. That's not cultural policy. It’s protectionism with a cultural veneer.
The consequences are predictable. Consumers face higher subscription costs. Platforms face pressure to pull back investment or limit content offerings in affected markets. And trade relationships are strained in ways that serve no one's long-term interest.
Cultural goals are legitimate. The means matter, though. Governments can support local storytelling through direct investment, co-production frameworks, and incentive programs that don't discriminate based on where a company is headquartered. Canada has shown there is a better way—other governments would be well-advised to follow its lead.
About the author
Jordan G. Heiber
Jordan Heiber leads the Chamber’s international privacy and data flow policy portfolio and manages a team responsible for the full suite of digital policy issues, including cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and more.
