Quebec Bill 109 Could Make Smart-TV Importers Responsible for App Access
Quebec Bill 109 could reach smart-TV importers whose manufacturers have no Canadian establishment. Pending rules make software-update rights worth checking now.
Primary lensTrade policy
Sub-topicPolicy monitoring
Evidence base6 records used
Use casePolicy monitoring
Quebec Bill 109 could leave a smart-TV importer responsible for app access on a screen it cannot change. The enacted discoverability framework adopts a manufacturer definition that can include importers and distributors when the actual manufacturer has no Canadian establishment. The device obligations remain a prospective concern, dependent on commencement and implementing rules, rather than a verified September compliance deadline.
Culture has returned to the center of Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. In his August 22 account of the suspended talks, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada would not compromise protections for French and culture. USTR had already identified Quebec's device-manufacturer provisions as a concern in its . Neither record establishes that Bill 109 caused the impasse or that Canada offered to change it.
The less visible business question sits in the television distribution agreement. A company may fall within the legal definition of manufacturer while relying on another supplier to control the operating system. Trade counsel needs to establish whether responsibility and the ability to deliver a software change sit with the same party.
The Manufacturer May Be the Distributor
Section 4 of the enacted discoverability act adopts the manufacturer definition in Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. Section 1(g) of that statute includes businesses that publicly present themselves as manufacturers. It also includes an importer or distributor of foreign-made goods, or a person permitting its trademark to be used on goods, when the manufacturer lacks an establishment in Canada.
Importing a television does not, by itself, bring every importer within that definition. Counsel needs to identify the actual manufacturing entity, whether it has a Canadian establishment, and the relevant import, distribution or branding role. A corporate-group name alone does not answer those questions.
The discoverability act then applies its device provisions to manufacturers of televisions and specified connected devices. Read together, the provisions can put a distributor within scope without giving it control over the interface. The practical test is whether its supplier agreement secures the updates needed to perform any applicable duty. This is a contract-review inference from the statutory structure, not a document requirement imposed by the act.
A French Menu Does Not Settle App Access
Sections 15 through 18 address different functions. The framework calls for interfaces to be easily configurable in French on regulatory terms. Relevant gateways and manufacturers would have to provide access to platforms meeting government criteria. Television and connected-device manufacturers would also have to provide access to government-designated viewing platforms offering predominantly original French-language content and operated by public-interest or nonprofit entities. Government may prescribe visibility conditions as well.
A French menu, an accessible app and a prominent app therefore raise different questions. Translation alone cannot be assumed to satisfy access or visibility requirements. Conversely, the statute does not specify an app position, remote-control button or preinstallation requirement. It leaves those details to regulations.
Does the manufacturer lack a Canadian establishment?
Channel supply and supplier recourse
Entity identity and support obligations
Interface supplier
Which features can it change for the device?
App access, placement and language configuration
Deployment authority and change timing
The table maps preparation work, not current filing duties. Its point is to identify any gap between the company that may be responsible and the supplier able to perform the work.
Mandatory Access Has a Different Price Rule
Section 19 of the discoverability act adds a commercial constraint. Manufacturer compliance with sections 16 through 18, including regulations under them, must not generate financial consideration from digital platforms. A contract should not assume that charging the platform will finance a manufacturer's required access or visibility work.
That is narrower than a ban on app-placement fees. The provision does not declare all advertising, distribution or unrelated commercial payments unlawful. Contract review should separate the work required for compliance from independently purchased promotion, then identify who bears the required work's cost. Bundling both into one placement package would obscure the distinction.
A platform agreement with Quebec would not necessarily resolve the hardware obligations either. Sections 21 through 24 permit government-approved substitute measures for qualifying digital platforms. They do not give a manufacturer acting only in that capacity the same agreement route. A group operating both devices and a platform would need to check the covered entity and substituted provisions before assuming relief extended across the group.
Prepare the Contract Without Inventing a Deadline
Bill 109 received assent on December 12, 2025, but its final provision leaves commencement to dates determined by government. The National Assembly record identifies commencement by decree. A review of the Gazette's published issue contents through September 2 found no commencement decree or implementing regulation. The February publication of the act was not an activation order.
There is no verified effective quota or device-compliance date to certify against in those records. Government still has to determine material conditions and may establish exceptions. The final law calls for easy French configuration, not the French-default interface described in the introduced bill.
The wider USMCA cultural-exemption dispute remains a separate trade-law question. A reassuring negotiating statement cannot settle the distributor's corporate-definition or software-control questions. For now, the decision is whether its distribution contract leaves it dependent on an update the supplier has never promised to deliver. An official commencement instrument and applicable rules identifying the affected devices, obligations, exceptions and timing would move that review from preparation to implementation.
From reading to review
Run the numbers on your lane.
The duty calculator runs the current stack for any HTS code and origin. A free account opens full tool output, AD/CVD detail, Chapter 98 processing, and available exports.