Meta is refusing to publicly disclose information that could determine whether it is subject to the Online 亚洲天堂 Act despite blocking news from its platforms.

It has declined to follow CRTC directions to either publicly release that information or explain in detail why it should remain confidential, a move that Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge鈥檚 office says sends 鈥渁 troubling message.鈥�

鈥淭hey consider themselves above oversight in the public interest, legislation promised during elections, and even the smallest and most reasonable regulation,鈥� a spokesperson said in a statement.

Last year, the company blocked news from Facebook and Instagram in response to the Online 亚洲天堂 Act. The legislation was aimed at Meta and Google and would have required Meta to compensate media outlets for displaying their content.

But users have found workarounds to continue to share news on the platforms, such as sharing screenshots of news articles and copying text of articles in their posts.

The Liberal government maintains the company could still fall under Online 亚洲天堂 Act, but that would be up to the CRTC to determine.

The regulator, which operates at arms鈥� length from government, is in charge of implementing the legislation. Last month, it granted Google an exemption from the act under an agreement that will see Google pay out $100 million to Canadian news outlets.

In early October, the CRTC wrote to Meta, telling the company it 鈥渉as been made aware of reports that news content from Canadian news outlets continues to be available on Meta鈥檚 platforms in Canada.鈥�

It asked Meta what measures it鈥檚 taking to comply with the Online 亚洲天堂 Act, and if news is being made available on its platforms.

After the company filed a confidential response, the CRTC told Meta that under its rules, Meta must provide a detailed explanation of why that information should be kept confidential, 鈥渋ncluding why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.鈥�

The CRTC also told Meta it was required to file an abridged version of the document that doesn鈥檛 include the confidential information.

Meta declined to do so in an Oct. 28 response from its public policy director Dan Ball. It said the letter includes specific measures the company uses to remove access to news content, which it has not made public.

鈥淚t is in the public interest to maintain this information as confidential so users cannot use it to avoid detection of news that Meta would otherwise remove, thereby undermining the Act rather than ensuring compliance with it.鈥�

It said that 鈥渢he entirety of the Letter contains confidential information relating to the sensitive commercial process that Meta undertakes to ensure compliance.鈥�

On Nov. 7, the CRTC told Meta that response wasn鈥檛 good enough.

It said Meta didn鈥檛 adequately justify why the letter should be kept confidential under the Online 亚洲天堂 Act. The CRTC said generic statements about harm to a company aren鈥檛 sufficient, and that Meta hasn鈥檛 justified 鈥渉ow any specific, direct harm to Meta would outweigh the public interest.鈥�

It said the information in the letter 鈥渃ould allow for informed public comment on Meta鈥檚 practices and whether these practices implicate the Act, which would strongly serve the public interest.鈥�

It told Meta to make the letter public. Otherwise, it said, Meta could reply and the CRTC would then determine whether disclosure is in the public interest.

Ball did reply with on Nov. 12, stating only that 鈥渢he details about the company in our prior response contain confidential information, the justifications for which are in our prior correspondence.鈥�

The CRTC now says it is assessing how to respond. Asked whether the CRTC will make the information public, a spokesperson said it is 鈥渃urrently determining next steps, including dealing with confidentiality.鈥�

Meta declined to comment, with a spokesperson pointing to its Nov. 12 response to the CRTC.