In September 2016,
Bell Media issued a cease and desist order to VMedia over its Roku-based IPTV service, demanding the removal of all of its networks.
Canadian copyright law allows "retransmitters", defined as "a person who performs a function comparable to that of a cable retransmission system", to redistribute local and distant broadcast stations as part of their services. However, this only applies to IPTV services operating over private networks, because the law's definition of a retransmitter does not apply to services operating on new media platforms that are
not regulated by the CRTC. VMedia argued that its permission to redistribute these stations fell under its CRTC licensing as a television provider. Bell argued that the over-the-top service did not fall within this definition, or the formal licensing for the IPTV service offered in conjunction with its internet, and thus is a violation of their copyrights. VMedia representative George Burger disputed Bell's arguments, stating that Canadian copyright law was "technologically neutral", and that broadcasters were "happy to provide that content" to similar, U.S.-based services such as
Sling TV. However, he also warned that VMedia may not be able to afford litigation on the matter, stating that "Bell has untold millions of dollars that it can afford to spend on litigation. We're a startup. We're trying to find our way to profitability." Pending the result of the lawsuit, VMedia removed CTV and CTV Two from the service. On November 22, 2016, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that under current law, VMedia must negotiate carriage agreements with Bell Media to carry its over-the-air channels on an over-the-top service. It added that "If technology has overcome the existing laws and policies, it is open to interested parties to put the issues before the CRTC to try to revise the policies and the definitions". ==References==