Tangle - The lawsuits against Amazon and Google.

Episode Date: October 5, 2023

The Amazon and Google lawsuits. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ⁠filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon⁠, accusing the company of monopolizing the online retail space. The FTC alleges that Amazon, worth $1.3 trillion, prevents its sellers from offering their products more cheaply on other platforms, forces sellers to use its warehouses and delivery services, and sometimes inflates costs both for consumers and sellers. It began investigating Amazon in 2019, during the Trump administration.You can read today's podcast ⁠here⁠, today’s Under the Radar story ⁠here⁠, and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠. You can also check out our latest YouTube video ⁠here⁠.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (1:05), Today’s story (3:01), Left’s take (6:32), Right’s take (12:04), Isaac’s take (17:18), Listener question (21:15), Under the Radar (24:04), Numbers (24:51), Have a nice day (25:26)You can⁠ subscribe to Tangle by clicking here⁠ or drop something⁠ in our tip jar by clicking here.⁠Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and it's October 5th, 2023. A friend of mine told me we should start doing the dates on the podcast. I think it's a good idea. I'm going to start saying the dates, the day and the dates. It is Thursday, October 5th, and today we are going to be covering the lawsuits against Amazon and Google. There is a lot of antitrust action happening right now in the United States. We're going to explain some

of what is going on. Before we jump in though, as always, we're going to start off with some quick hits. First up, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Representative Jim Jordan announced they were running for House Speaker after Kevin McCarthy was ousted. Number two, roughly 75,000 healthcare workers from Kaiser Permanente walked off the job yesterday, marking the largest healthcare strike in U.S. history. Number three, President Biden canceled an additional $9 billion of student debt for 125,000 borrowers yesterday through changes to the income-driven repayment plan and the public service loan forgiveness program. Number four, Iranian activists say a 16-year-old girl was put into a coma by morality police after a confrontation over a dress code violation.

And number five, the White House waived dozens of federal laws and approved the construction of 20 miles of border wall in southern Texas to address the migrant crisis. Starting tomorrow, the U.S. Justice Department's monopoly case against Google will go to trial for what's widely considered the biggest antitrust trial of the modern digital era. Google is the undisputed giant when it comes to searching the web. More than 90 percent of searches start with Google. The fundamental question in this trial centers on whether Google stifled competition and harmed consumers by becoming the default search engine through deals with phone makers and internet browsers. This morning, a groundbreaking lawsuit. The Federal Trade Commission and 17 states are suing Amazon, claiming the online retail giant has created

a monopoly. The suit claims Amazon deters rivals and punishes sellers from lowering prices on other sites by making them invisible in search results. The $1.3 trillion company is accused of prioritizing search results for its own products and coercing sellers to use Amazon's fulfillment service. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission, also known as the FTC, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the company of monopolizing the online retail space. The FTC alleges that Amazon, worth $1.3 trillion, prevents its sellers from offering their products more cheaply on other platforms, forces sellers to use its warehouses and delivery services, and sometimes inflates costs both for consumers and sellers.

It began investigating Amazon in 2019 during the Trump administration. During a press briefing, FTC chair Lina Khan declined to say whether she hoped to break Amazon up. At this stage, the focus is really on liability, she told reporters. Amazon argues that the lawsuit is going to hurt consumers by leading to higher prices and slower deliveries. It says its practices have spurred competition and innovation across the industry, lowering prices, creating better services, and empowering 500,000 independent sellers. The lawsuit was widely expected and is part of a bipartisan push to take stronger regulatory action against big tech. 17 state attorneys general have joined the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, in September, the Justice Department's case against Google went to civil trial. The DOJ has been investigating Google for three years, and this case is aimed at Google's internet search and advertisement business, which the FTC says has illegal agreements to sideline its rivals that harm consumers and advertisers. Google has about a 90% market share on search, which it maintains share of via agreements with smartphone manufacturers and browsers. For example, Google pays billions of dollars to be the default search engine on Safari, the default Apple browser. The government argues that these deals make Google the default search engine on almost all devices and reduce competition. The exclusive deals also

keep other companies from competing for search engine business or improving their products, the FTC argues, which ultimately hurts consumers. Because a company like Microsoft gets so few search queries in comparison, it is much harder to improve its product, which gives Google an anti-competitive advantage. Google, meanwhile, says these deals give browser providers what they want, which is a single default search option for customers. It compares its practices to a maker of cereals paying supermarkets to stock its product at eye level. Google also argues that Apple and Mozilla use the search engine because it beats rival search engines, and even Windows users who don't have Google products preloaded on their

computers will typically opt for Google search. At the same time, users of Apple products can change their default search option if they want. While Amazon faces the threat of being broken up, experts believe if Google loses its case, it would more likely face new constraints on how it does business. Both lawsuits are part of a new wave of antitrust enforcement that has not been seen in America for decades. The last major challenge to monopoly power in U.S. court was when the government sued Microsoft in 1998 over its attempt to control the market for internet browsers with Explorer. The Justice Department won that lawsuit, which opened the door for rivals like Google. Now, the Justice Department says companies

like Google and Amazon have used the same playbook Microsoft did to maintain its own monopoly. Today, we're going to examine some arguments from the right and the left about this enforcement, and then my take. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left is split on the Amazon lawsuit, with some arguing that the FTC is stretching its authority to bring a case that most consumers don't want. Others say the opposite is true, and these are exactly the kinds of lawsuits the FTC should be pursuing. In the Google case, some on the left think the verdict will change the internet no matter the outcome. Others think the case is unlikely to address the root problems plaguing the internet. The Bloomberg editorial board said Lena Kahn and the FTC are wrong about Amazon.

The FTC is wielding fringe antitrust theories with little regard for consumers. One allegation is that Amazon punishes sellers that offer products for lower prices on competing platforms. For instance, the suit says, Amazon blocks such sellers from its buy box, which highlights what the company considers the most valuable results to a user's query. The FTC states without without evidence, that this practice leads sellers to raise their prices on other sites. Exactly what remedy would the government impose? There's a larger point to bear in mind. Prime has about 150 million members in the U.S. Fully 91% of them report being satisfied with their subscription, the board said.

Amazon routinely ranks among the most trusted brands in the country. It invests more in R&D, $73 billion last year, than any company in the world. More pertinently, it allows consumers to search for any product they desire, select among a bevy of competing alternatives, and expect a neatly wrapped package to arrive within days or, indeed, hours. If consumer welfare is the FTC's lodestar, as it should be, a worse target for government intervention is hard to imagine. In the New York Times, Cory Doctorow wrote that Amazon is precisely the kind of company that U.S. antitrust laws are meant to target. Today's tech barons at huge platforms like Amazon, Google, and Meta can deploy anti-competitive, deceptive, and unfair tactics

with the agility and speed of a digital system. And Amazon is the apex predator of our platform era, he wrote. Having first subsidized end users and then offered favorable terms to business customers, Amazon was able to exploit its digital flexibility to lock both in and raid them for an ever-increasing share of the value they created. This program of redistribution from platform users to shareholders continued until Amazon became a vestigial place, a retail colossus barely hindered by either competition or regulation. The best time to have fought this power was over the past quarter century as Amazon's founder Jeff Bezos used his shareholders' capital on predatory

pricing campaigns. Seem seemingly in plain violation of the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 and on a string of anti-competitive acquisitions that surely violated the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. The second best time to fight this power is now. Ms. Kahn, who is joined by over a dozen states in taking on Amazon, has set herself a monumental, urgent, necessary task. She is fighting to win, but if she loses again, it will not signal defeat. Gizmodo's Thomas Germain argued that Google's antitrust case will reshape the internet whether it wins or loses. The government's case might seem like a simple argument. Google has more money, so it can afford to shut its

competitors out of the prime spots on browsers and mobile devices. Google, however, argues it's constantly improving its products and paying to be the default engine is a reasonable and fair practice. But win or lose, Google is in trouble, Germain said. Legal experts talk about the policeman at the elbow effect, where the simple presence of government scrutiny forces a company to take fewer chances in the marketplace. That's what happened when the DOJ began a 13-year antitrust battle against IBM in the 1960s. The DOJ lost the case, but IBM was distracted and had to move slowly, and Microsoft and Apple swooped in and knocked IBM off its perch. 20 years later, the same thing happened to Microsoft. Right on schedule, another two decades have passed, and now it could be Google's turn. Today, AI tools like ChatGPT pose an existential threat to the company's search business.

Google.com is the most popular website on earth, but Google needs to take big risks to fend off competition right now, which is exactly what it can't do with the DOJ breathing down its neck. In Jacobin, Rob Larson said the verdict in Google's trial is unlikely to change much, barring one drastic outcome. Google has a number of advantages in the case, above all, the weak iteration of U.S. antitrust law in the neoliberal era. Modern antitrust law relies on companies raising prices before government intervention, while Google's products are free and the corporate agreements at issue are not exclusive. Google, of course, wields enormous power over our lives. Whatever the outcome of this case, that is unlikely to change. With antitrust action vanishingly unlikely to end its dominance, bringing Google under public democratic control is a better option, Larson wrote.

If this outcome doesn't come to pass, another option is a breakup, a classically American remedy, as it involves taking the lightest approach to interfering with the sacred market, turning a monopoly into an oligopoly, a small number of giant firms dominating a market instead of just one, Larson said. But even an unlikely breakup wouldn't fix the major problems in these markets, with one or perhaps two gigantic entities ruling over most of our online lives. For something as toweringly important as the internet's main source and channel of information, public ownership and some form of democratic control should be on the table.

All right, that is it for the leftist saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right opposes the FTC's case against Amazon, arguing that the agency is harming the consumers it purports to protect. Others say the trial could have negative ripple effects, stifling business and innovation in other sectors. The right is also critical of the case against Google on the grounds that it undermines the freedom to choose preferred products and services. Others say that the right should rally behind the government in this case because of the role Google has played in stifling conservative voices on the internet. National Review's editors criticize Linacon's anti-Amazon crusade.

As Amazon users know, one of the top reasons to shop on Amazon is lower prices. Yet the FTC alleges that Amazon keeps prices higher than they otherwise would be by demoting discount sellers and search results. Aside from being contradictory to most people's experience using Amazon, this charge is also contradictory to past criticism of Amazon on antitrust grounds, the editor said. The FTC's job is to protect consumers, and why should consumers be protected from easy access to lower-priced goods? But it's clear that the FTC's mission under Khan is to hit Amazon, so now the problem is that prices are too high. The mere act of bringing these suits and suggesting that the FTC ought to be able to tinker with business practices under pretense of antitrust law will have a negative effect on other businesses who are seeking to innovate and grow, the editors added. The message from the FTC to businesses right now,

don't get too big or too successful or too beneficial to consumers, because if you do, we're coming for you. That's the wrong message for the federal government to send. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease.

Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. For the Hoover Institution, Richard A. Epstein argued that the FTC ignores consumers by punishing

Amazon for what the company does right. A close examination of the FTC ignores consumers by punishing Amazon for what the company does right. A close examination of the company's so-called bad business practices reveals only pro-competitive behaviors that are mischaracterized in the FTC's complaint. The case here is even weaker than the similar suits against Google and Meta, both of which operate in network industries where competitive solutions are not possible given the extensive needs for cooperation among competitors. So it appears that this sloppy complaint should fail in court as another of Kahn's ill-conceived forays to push the boundaries of antitrust law outside the consumer welfare framework that Kahn so distrusts, Epstein wrote.

But suppose she did persuade a court to find some antitrust violation. What next? The FTC is cagey about suggested remedies. Breaking up the company is always infinitely messier than stopping mergers, and thus almost never happens. Banning the pro-competitive practices misunderstood in the complaint is wildly anti-competitive. Damages or fines are not even suggested. So this suit incurs large costs for the government, while imposing even bigger costs on Amazon, a lose-lose operation. In Real Clear Policy, Mark A. Jamison said the

case against Google is a misguided crusade threatening innovation and consumer choice. In the age of technological innovation, the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Google, now on trial, appears to be a misguided attempt to have lawyers reshape the digital landscape. The government asserts that this case is about the future of the internet and whether Google will ever face meaningful competition. And while the concern about how this case will affect the future of the internet is valid, the notion that the government can artificially create competition for Google is fundamentally flawed, Jameson wrote. At the heart of this lawsuit lies the question of

whether consumers will retain control over the digital ecosystem they have helped shape and guide. It also raises concerns about whether the next generation of search and online services will evolve through consumer choice or be dictated by antitrust lawyers. Regardless of the outcome, the message sent by the government is clear. Any business that pleases large numbers of customers is at risk of being unreasonably targeted and restrained. While vigilance against anti-competitive behavior is important, it should not come at the cost of suppressing market-driven competition. In the Daily Caller, Mike Davis wrote about why conservatives must support the DOJ against Google. I have strong disagreements with the Biden Department of Justice on many

fronts, but I agree with them on the need to prosecute this case against Google, Davis said. The case challenges Google's business practices in the online search and search advertising markets, both of which the company has had a stronghold upon for almost two decades. Because of Google's gatekeeper roles in these markets, many local newspaper publishers, along with conservative outlets, allege they have been shuttered as their advertising revenues were siphoned off and access was restricted by Google. The second reason conservatives should support the DOJ in the Google case is because if the DOJ wins, it would hold Google accountable under federal antitrust law for the first time in the company's history. The case should be an antitrust

slam dunk if the court applies the antitrust law as drafted by Congress, but those laws have been radically rewritten by members of Congress under influence of legal scholars and jurists in recent decades, Davis said. These issues are of vital importance, and if Google wins this case, conservatives should still renew our calls for legislation to rein in not just Google, but also other big tech platforms before it's too late. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So one of the odd things about these lawsuits is just how difficult it is to divorce your personal feelings about the companies from the actual laws in question. I think Amazon makes a tremendous product. I'm an Amazon Prime subscriber and I use it weekly. It has saved me countless hours from going to a store, navigating Target's terrible website, or simply in reducing

shipping time, and I'm sure countless dollars too. Products are cheaper on Amazon and they get to my door faster. Buying them is easier and figuring out which products I want is simpler. Amazon makes it easy to read customer reviews and explore the specs of a product in a way other online retailers frequently don't. At the same time, the details of Amazon's case seem more damning than Google's. Just as a matter of numbers, the fact it might take roughly 50% of sellers' revenue and fees is alarming. But some of the practices are too. A few commentators I read referenced this Wall Street Journal story about Project Nessie, an algorithm Amazon used to test how

much it could raise prices for competitors to match them. If other places didn't increase their prices along with Amazon, it would bring its price back down, thus ensuring it didn't lose any market share. The company also did this in reverse, matching discounted prices from its competitors and then remaining locked in the lower prices when a competitor's sale ended. Its sheer size allowed it to recoup money, improve margins, and defend itself against competition. That is, in a lot of ways, the kind of thing our antitrust laws were designed to defend against. But if the FTC were to win this case, it would probably make Amazon's product worse, which impacts me in a negative way, which makes it harder for me to root for that outcome.

It also makes it a little harder to justify philosophically, as antitrust law is supposed to protect me, the consumer. The most compelling argument for Amazon that I've seen came from a few commentators across the political spectrum who effectively made the case that the FTC is defining a market Amazon literally created and then arguing that Amazon is monopolizing that market. Put differently, the online retail world we live in only exists because of Amazon, and now Amazon is being punished for making that world a reality. Emotionally, I like this argument. Legally, I have no idea how it pans out. Google is almost the reverse for me. Google's product has gotten worse and worse over the years. Top search results are dominated by advertisements.

When searching for news outlets, which is what I primarily do, there is overt bias toward left-leaning outlets. And anytime I use Google, all of its advertising partners bombard me with my searches everywhere I go for the rest of time. As a result, I find myself using alternative search engines like DuckDuckGo, Brave, or Bing more and more regularly. At the same time, Google's practices seem less offensive to me. The advertising issues are more worrisome to me than the raw search monopoly, though the two are of course linked. But Google paying Apple or Mozilla to use its Google search feature doesn't really offend my monopoly sensibilities. They're paying a steep price. Mozilla and Apple could refuse it if it were smart for their own businesses, and as a consumer, it makes my life easier having something as crucial as a search engine baked into the default internet browsers

of the devices I buy. And if it really bothered me, I could always download another browser. Again, my personal feelings about these products are difficult to separate from whether I view them as monopolies. It's very unclear to me how either of these cases will turn out, and I don't feel compelled to make an uninformed prediction. But I will say this. The impact is likely to be massive. When I wrote about Kevin McCarthy yesterday, I said his ouster probably wouldn't impact you in any meaningful way, even though it was a historic story and the media was obsessing over it. This story is getting far less attention, but its likelihood of impacting your day-to-day life, given how ubiquitous search engines and online retailers are, is certainly much higher.

All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Clive in Templeton, California. Clive said, you covered Rupert Murdoch's legacy well. How would you like your legacy to be described when you turn 90? This is a good question. Thank you, Clive. Gave me something to think about. Of course, I would love it if Tangle took off and sparked a total reimagining of the way political news works.

My dream, though, is that we maintain a small, well-paid team and reach a massive audience. I have no aspirations for Tangle to become the next major newsroom, though it'd be wonderful if people waited for our coverage of big issues to help inform their own opinions. In my ideal world, Tangle is both widely respected and hugely successful, and I personally get to pursue all of my individual interests. I love covering politics, but my truest passion is writing, and I have a ton of other projects I want to pursue. Just hypothetically, though, let's say Tangle doesn't explode in popularity, and I'm not heralded as leading the vanguard in a journalistic revolution that restores trust in news. Unlikely, I know.

Even if Tangle enjoys only modest success, I want my legacy to be one that's part of these two broad trends in journalism I'm betting on as the future of news. First, newsletters are the new newspapers. Part of the legacy of the internet is to decentralize, and what that means for journalism is a decentralization of both means of distribution as well as expertise. People don't receive physical news anymore, and the legacy organizations that had made print their bread and butter have pivoted their businesses to rely significantly on electronic media. The next evolution of that is familiarity with the people behind the news as people, rather than just extensions of a brand. Reading the tea leaves, I think that means there's a

big market need for digestible news delivered to your inbox from people who you can trust. Which brings me to number two, people want to understand. I think we'll be looking back at the past 20 years as the first reaction to the digital media paradigm, which showed that rage sells and emotional responses drive clicks. For all of that time, I think we've essentially been binging junk food. And after 20 years of that, I think news readers are craving a healthier diet. That means that instead of seeing headlines that confirm your biases, you get opinions that challenge them. Instead of reading news that drives emotion, you get news that leads with facts, nuance, and civility. And instead of being told that people who disagree with you are your enemies,

you get analysis that treats issues with balance and empathy. When I'm 90, I hope that I can look back and say that both of those big bets were right, that even though news media will still have its issues, I and Tangle were part of a movement that fixed some of the biggest problems in journalism over the past two decades. All right, that is it for our reader question today, which brings us to the under the radar section. The Biden administration plans to give millions of dollars in foreign aid to Panama in exchange for the Central American country deporting more migrants. The aim is to stop migrants before they arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border. Senator Bob Menendez, the Democrat from

New Jersey, had been holding the program up, but the plan is advancing now that he's stepped down from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after being indicted on bribery charges. Roughly $10 million is expected to be spent on a six-month pilot program to help Panama deport migrants who don't qualify for protections with the funds used to target single adult males. Axios has the story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The approximate percentage of total revenue sellers end up paying to Amazon because of the platform's fees is 50%. That's according to the FTC complaint. The number of state attorneys general who joined the lawsuit against Amazon was 17. And the number of those attorneys general who joined the lawsuit against Amazon was 17. And the number of those attorneys general who are Republicans was just two.

The number of packages Amazon ships each day is 1.6 million. And the estimated number of Google searches made each day is 9 billion. The estimated market share Google has in search is 90 percent. All right. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Sharon Travers was on her way to her wedding ceremony at Colts Parish Church in Aberdeen, Scotland when her car broke down. It left her stranded en route. However, when it seemed like the universe was conspiring against her, a good Samaritan arrived to save the wedding. Sharon's friend and driver for the day waved down the first passing car, which turned out to be driven by a man named Alan Knowles,

a name that would soon be etched in Sharon's memory. Without hesitation, Alan agreed to drive the distressed bride-to-be to the church. I'm glad the bride managed to get to the church on time, Alan said. I just really want to say thank you, Sharon responded. I'm now laughing about it, but I certainly wasn't at the time. I'm so grateful. It was such a fantastic moment. Sunny Skies has the story about the rescue, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work, please go to readtangle.com and consider becoming a subscriber. And before you turn the podcast off, don't forget we have a new video up where I talk about how we can fix presidential debates. This one's getting a lot of

engagement already. We'd appreciate it if you go to the YouTube channel, check it out, watch the video. And if you like the content you find there, be sure to subscribe. We'll be right back here same time tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited by John Long. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bukova, who's also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75.

For more on Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. Can Indigenous Ways of Knowing help kids cope with online bullying? At the University of British Columbia, we believe that they can. Dr. Johanna Sam and her team are researching how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth cope with cyber aggression, working to bridge the diversity gap in child psychology research. At UBC, our researchers are answering today's most pressing questions. To learn how we're moving the world forward, visit ubc.ca forward happens here. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown

follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season?

Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.