When is Amazon Prime Day 2025 in Canada? Date announcement, details about this year's massive 4-day sale, plus the best early deals you can already shop now
Amazon Prime Day 2025 will run from July 8 at 12:01 a.m. PST through July 11 at 11:59 p.m. PST. Leading up to the four-day sale, Canadians can already shop Amazon's early Prime Day deals — scroll below to check out some of the best ones.
Prime Day is Amazon's biggest sale of the year, with deals offered exclusively for Amazon Prime members. The 2025 sale lasts four days and features both flash sales and limited-time savings. In previous years, Amazon has included deals on Apple devices, laptops, TVs, name-brand vacuums and more.
While Amazon Prime Day 2025 doesn't kick off until July 8, you can already score tons of early Prime Day deals — some of which are at their lowest price ever (seriously!). From tech and small kitchen appliances to seasonal essentials, scroll down to check out the best of the best:
Yes. Prime Day is a shopping event with thousands of deals exclusively for Prime members. However, that's not to say non-Prime members can't also score a deal. Amazon's Deals Store usually has sales available for both Prime and non-Prime members; however, discounts on name brands and high-end tech are usually reserved for those with a Prime subscription.
New Prime members can test-drive Prime with a one-week trial for $0.99 before committing to a membership. Once your trial ends, memberships cost $99/year or $9.99/month for Canadian subscribers. Student discounts are also available.
In addition to exclusive Amazon Prime Day 2025 deals, Prime members enjoy several year-round perks, including the following:
Free same-day, one-day and two-day shipping
Exclusive access to Prime Video original TV shows and movies
Early access to Lightning Deals
Stream or download hit movies and TV shows
Free eBook and music downloads through Prime Music and Prime Reading
Free games, a free Twitch channel subscription and more gaming benefits
Free DashPass+ for one year (includes $0 delivery fees and lower service fees)
Enjoy unlimited, full-resolution photo storage with Amazon Photos
From July 8-11, you can expect to save on categories including electronics, home, beauty and fashion — and a lot more. More specifically, you can anticipate savings on big brands like Ninja, Philips, Shark and Levi's. But that's not all — you'll also see deals from Canadian brands and small business like Cetaphil, Three Ships, Good To Go, All Natural Advice and more.
Here are some confirmed Amazon device deals you can look forward to:
Save up to 61% on Blink Outdoor Security Systems
Save up to 50% on Ring Battery Doorbells
Save $100s on Amazon eero Pro 6E mesh wifi systems
Save up to 77% on Amazon Echo Buds
Save up to 26% on select Kindles
Save up to 38% on Amazon Fire Tablets
Save up to 54% on Amazon Fire TV Sticks
It's crucial to beware of scams ahead of big sale days like Prime Day. From using price comparison tools to detecting fake reviews, we're here to help you out. To save time, avoid scams and score the best deals, click here for our must-read tips and tricks from last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Women are reporting bad men on this app. Here's the legal tea on the app called Tea
Tea Dating Advice is an app that has quietly existed since 2023 — but it rocketed to the top of Apple's app store this week after getting a ton of attention on social media. Since the start of the week, the app maker says, something like a million new users have signed up. Tea is marketed as a 'dating safety tool' for women, and it pledges to donate ten percent of its revenue to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. How does it achieve safety? By letting users post photos and gather information about potential suitors. Many men online saw the point of how the app might protect women, but a number of people expressed worry about the fairness and the legality of it all, ranging from the philosophical to the personal. 'The risk of abuse is insanely insanely high,' said one Redditor in a discussion on /privacy. 'It seems pretty socially deleterious if any human can have a social media profile they can't view created for them without their consent or knowledge,' one Twitter user wrote. And, of course: 'They got me fellas,' one man posted on TikTok, showing what appeared to be a report about him on the app. ('Welp time to move,' he concluded.) Then, on July 25, 4chan users claimed they found a database related to the app that included photos of users' IDs and other information, adding more fuel to the privacy fire. (The company confirmed the breach to 404 Media.) So what's the legal tea? Using AI, the app checks a users' selfies to verify that they are a woman. Once verified, users can post photos of men. These are usually mined from social media profiles and other dating apps. The app enables the photos to be run through a reverse image search, enabling them to run a basic background check, check against public sex offender databases, and check for photos that might get flagged as being used in 'catfishing' — misrepresenting one's identity online. The app also features a 'Tea Party Group Chat,' which allows users to directly share information about men, and has a rating function, which allows users to share their experiences with Yelp-style reviews, awarding men a 'green flag' or a 'red flag.' The inclusion of men's names, identities, and other information has triggered people to ask: Does the app enable users to violate others' privacy rights? The Tea's biggest problems are actually practical, not legal. Tea definitely raises fascinating questions about privacy, the digital age, and norms of modern romance, but largely stays clear of any major legal problems in the U.S. by creating the forum in the way it did. There really are three buckets (teacups?) of legal issues that could arise in connection with the app: potential civil liability for privacy violations and defamation, and possible criminal exposure related to online behavior. In general, the right to privacy covers the right to be free from intrusion into one's personal affairs, the ability to control who has access to one's personal information and the right to be free from unwarranted publicity. We all enjoy some right to keep private our affairs and – relevant here – our images. Many privacy laws are quite clear and straightforward. For instance, it is almost always a clear violation of law to publicize someone's Social Security Number. There are healthcare laws such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, which sets national standards for when and how even medical offices can handle patients' health information. Specific privacy laws govern the disclosure of student records, financial information, personal data and a host of other information people generally want kept secured. Like so much in our lives, the internet makes everything more complicated. (Perhaps the internet, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, might well be the cause of, and solution to, all the world's problems.) A norm about the world we all accept now is that photographs of us all are likely bouncing around the internet right now – and mostly these are pictures that we posted ourselves. With the Tea, some men have complained that the very act of enabling users to post photos of them online without their consent violates their privacy rights. It is fair for people to be concerned about their images or likenesses published online. Still, many aspects of our world complicate any ability one might have to challenge the unconsented use of an image on a dating app, at least in the U.S. First, as a legal matter, many of the images that appear on Tea were first voluntarily posted on dating apps or social media sites. When a user posts a photo to the internet or an app like Facebook or Instagram, he or she typically retains the rights to it (i.e., they still own it), but has granted the platform the right to distribute or display it in connection with the service. (To be fair, most users don't read the fine print when they sign up for apps.) It becomes harder to make a privacy rights argument when one has waived those very rights to the photo in another context. A practical question would come up around enforcing a complaint that one's image appeared on an app without their consent. A staggering number of photos that we didn't post exist online of nearly all of us; we don't have a right to challenge the legality of every group photo ever posted on a social media platform in which we appear. Certainly, Tea raises the bar by explicitly inviting criticism or negative attention based on the photo. But where would the legal line around those photos be? Accompanying a photo with truthful information such as 'I went on a date with this man?' Truthful, but potentially embarrassing information such as 'I went on a date with this man and he was cheap and didn't pay for my latte?' A truthful, but mean-spirited expression of opinion that might bring huge reputational harm, such as 'I went on a date with this man and I honestly worry that he might be a sex offender?' (More on how the law handles individuals' sincere opinions in a moment.) No matter how embarrassing any such posts might be, the legal line around them is a fuzzy one. In principle, a user could instead raise a copyright complaint if a photo they took and posted to a social media or dating platform gets posted by someone else to another, like Tea. If they are the copyright holder, or owner, of the image and it was posted without their permission and isn't in the public domain, they could perhaps petition Tea to have the image taken down. It does not appear that that approach has been tested yet. Note, however, that people may not have the rights to many photos they appear in; when a person appears in an image, there's a good chance that they didn't take it — unless it was a selfie. Legally, defamation is the publication of false information that harms someone's reputation. Generally, for a statement or act to be considered defamatory, the following elements must be present: the statement must be made public to at least one other person; the statement must be presented as a fact, not an opinion, and must be untrue; the person publishing the statement must be at fault, either by being aware that the statement is false or being reckless about it; and the statement or act must have caused some damage, whether financial or in the form of emotional distress. Anything published on Tea is public, so the first prong is easily met. The other criteria are heavily fact-specific, and will depend on the nature of the statement made, the speaker's belief in or research into its truth, and the level of harm caused by it. Even though a lot of the information published (spilled?) on Tea can cause great embarrassment to anyone outed or targeted on it, it is difficult to win most defamation suits based on an individual's sincere expressions of opinion or perceptions of events. Short of knowingly fabricating harmful information about one's date, a user merely expressing her negative opinions about a person or an experience with them are not likely to satisfy most defamation claims. Likewise, the app itself isn't likely to lose a defamation suit for speech that is presented on its platform. The closest existing parallel might be the array of public Facebook pages that ask 'Are We Dating the Same Guy?' and invite users to post information to help determine whether a man is, well, drinking his tea from multiple mugs at once. Last year, a man sued Spill The Tea Inc. and Meta (the parent company of Facebook) and 27 women in a Chicago-area chat. He said they posted about him and said he was 'very clingy, very fast,' and 'he told me what I wanted to hear until I slept with him, and then he ghosted.' Another posted a link to an article about a man charged with sexually assaulting a woman he met on the app. The man in the photo wasn't the plaintiff, but the suit alleged that the woman used the article to imply that he was the man in the mugshot. But a federal judge threw the suit out, on the basis that none of the statements were false, all were subjective opinions, none were inherently damaging as defined by the law, and that the plaintiff did not establish that any of his photos were used for commercial purposes (as would have been required for him to win under Illinois privacy law). It can be. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects online platforms from being treated as publishers or speakers of content posted by their users, so Tea is largely shielded from liability for what happens on their platforms. (The Section 230 question would get trickier if photos on the app were being used for sex trafficking, but that's not the case here.) However, individuals on the app could personally face criminal exposure for truly extreme conduct. (Here, we are talking spilling tea that is not just steaming, but boiling hot.) For instance, several states have laws prohibiting 'doxxing,' or releasing unauthorized personal information with an intent to harm or cause someone harassment. Establishing criminal intent that would stand up in court might be tricky, given that a Tea app user could always argue that her intent was to protect other women, not unduly harass the purported victim. Several states have added electronic communications to their existing harassment and stalking laws, but these laws cover conduct far more egregious than anything that has been publicly reported about appearing on Tea. New Jersey's cyberharassment law, for example, makes it a crime to post obscene materials 'with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm.' Arizona's doxxing law makes it a crime to post an individual's personal identifying information 'for the purpose of imminently causing the person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment.' Other states' laws generally are in the same ballpark and require some form of malicious intent. It can certainly be embarrassing to have one's information splashed across the internet without their consent, and even non-defamatory statements can bring real costs. However, the high bar of establishing criminal intent would make it difficult to prosecute most behavior that takes place on Tea. There are reasonable questions about the structure of the app; men claim to have already gotten past the app's gender verification process by posting selfies taken by women, or by using AI to generate photos of themselves as women. (We will leave the issue of the cultural, political, and legal minefield of verifying anyone's gender in 2025 for another day.) Men who have had the misfortune of appearing on Tea have valid concerns about the conduct it enables. Some of the information that a user might make public on the app – behavior on dates, information about sexually transmitted diseases, even criminal history – is exceptionally sensitive and might have been originally disclosed to another person with the hope that it would be kept private. Human interaction is complex and people all have different standards for what they find objectionable; what one person may interpret as a playful joke, another may interpret as a line-crossing insult worthy of being broadcast to the world. Men have complained that the app's group chat function invites not only discussions of misconduct or safety, but mockery of their appearance, or even the mere fact of their decision to end a relationship at a given time – a right everyone has. What kind of accountability could there be here for information that is posted that is inaccurate or simply hurtful? Still, one need not strain to recognize the many reasons why an app like Tea was created in the first place. There are reams of data stretching back a generation regarding safety on the internet and in dating as an obvious concern for women. For starters, 2023 data from the Pew Research Center found that women are more likely than men to say that dating apps feel unsafe. In addition, incontrovertible statistics have long documented America's rate of intimate partner violence against women. Statistics show that over a third of women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner. W, and women aged 18 to 34 – years in which many women who choose to date might be doing so – experience the highest rates of intimate partner violence. The app largely trended this week due to many women sharing potentially important things the app helped them discover, such as when dates were on sex offender lists or had histories of domestic violence. In light of these realities, concerns from men about the legality of an app like Tea seem really inadequate. However, perhaps the biggest issue Tea exposes isn't with the law, but with the digital age generally. Much internet communication is largely anonymous and pooled (i.e., visible to all others), which encourages piling on. Internet forums that allow people to air grievances blur the important social and legal line between accountability and punishment. Comment threads, whether on public forums or a closed, women-only dating safety app, welcome, and even invite, vigilante justice. At times, that form of justice may be useful and valid, given the lack of other channels of recourse – whether legal or personal – aggrieved daters may have. Still, Tea — the app — is not the problem. It is a symptom of a far broader issue:how people share information about each other, and date, in a national climate characterized by profound personal distrust, where women are treated poorly online, and with a ballooning number of platforms that empower individuals to publicize unverified information about others. (Note that the aging writer of this piece met his wife the old fashioned way: on a website.) While doing so can sometimes create legal problems, the biggest concern in all of this is about all of us, not a single app. Some of the men outed on the app certainly have a basis to feel aggrieved. But for the most part, if they escalate to filing legal challenges, they will likely find themselves crying alone over spilled tea. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Elliot Williams is a CNN legal analyst and former deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. He is the author of 'Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive 80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation,' coming from Penguin Press in 2026.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JP Morgan Says Apple's Set To Beat Q3 Estimates
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) looks set to beat when it reports Q3 fiscal 2025 on Thursday July 31 despite headwinds from cooling iPhone demand and modest Services growth. J.P. Morgan's Samik Chatterjee says the near?term setup is stronger than imagined given H1 pull?forward benefits, App Store link?outs in the US and the looming DOJ versus Google lawsuit in Services. The bank forecasts revenue of $89.6 billion, with iPhone at $39.9 billion, iPad at $7.7 billion, Mac at $7.4 billion and Services at $26.7 billion, some $600 million above the $88.96 billion consensus and sees EPS of $1.43. The firm keeps an Overweight rating and $250 price target after Apple has beaten revenue and EPS estimates for seven straight quarters. Services growth has remained healthy but lackluster, and the iPhone 17 rollout is failing to excite an install base used to major feature leaps. Apple's installed device base tops 2 B active units, giving it a cushion if upgrade cycles slow. Analysts will also watch for any updates on Siri enhancements and Vision Pro traction as Apple leans into AI amid peers. J.P. Morgan's Overweight thesis hinges on this resilience amid a tougher macro backdrop. Production headwinds have eased versus 90 days ago, hinting at smoother supply chains. Why it matters: A beat on July 31 could give AAPL shares a lift and set the stage for the iPhone 17 launch. Investors will be watching the Q3 result live and tracking early demand signals for Apple's next phone. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Wire
38 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Shareholder Alert: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Announces the Filing of Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple Inc.
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ('BLB&G') filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Apple Inc. ('Apple' or the 'Company') and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives (collectively, 'Defendants'). The action is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Apple common stock between June 10, 2024, and June 9, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'). This case is related to a previously filed securities class action pending against Apple captioned Tucker v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-05197 (N.D. Cal.). The case is captioned City of Coral Springs Police Officers' Pension Plan v. Apple Inc., No. 25-cv-06252 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is available on BLB&G's website by clicking here. Apple is a multinational technology company most well-known for its iPhone. It also sells other smart technology products and offers a variety of integrated software and services through the operation of various platforms, including the App Store. Since 2011, iPhones and other Apple smart devices have contained software for the Company's digital personal assistant, called 'Siri.' In recent years, a number of Apple's competitors have introduced artificial intelligence ('AI') capabilities, which put pressure on Apple to incorporate generative-AI technology into its iPhones and especially to introduce advanced AI-based Siri features. In 2020, Epic Games, Inc. ('Epic') sued Apple, challenging Apple's restrictions on app developers' ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, purchasing mechanisms outside of those offered by Apple's App Store (the 'Epic Action'). Apple takes a 30% commission on all revenues generated from its App Store, and Epic's efforts to open other avenues for app-related payments posed a threat to one of Apple's major revenue streams. After the companies initially went to trial in 2021, the court presiding over the action issued a 180-page order enjoining Apple's 'anti-steering' rules, which the court found were anti-competitive (the 'Epic Injunction'). This injunction went into effect on January 17, 2024, after Apple had exhausted its appeals. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions that fall into two categories: (i) statements regarding the launch of new generative-AI based Siri features; and (ii) statements concerning Apple's compliance with the Epic Injunction, including statements relating to any impacts on revenue from this compliance. Throughout the Class Period, starting with the Company's 2024 Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple represented to investors that the Company would be rolling out a number of AI-supported features for Siri in the first half of 2025, promising that 'over the next year' or 'in the coming months,' Siri would gain AI functionality that would enable it to 'take hundreds of new actions in and across Apple and third-party apps,' and 'deliver intelligence that's tailored to the user and their on-device information.' The Company also repeatedly represented that it had implemented a plan to comply with the Epic Injunction. In truth, Apple faced significant undisclosed challenges in developing the generative AI-enabled Siri, including meaningful quality challenges, that would make it unable to rollout the features in the first half of 2025 as had been stated. Additionally, the Company willfully violated the Epic Injunction by implementing new measures to prevent developers from deploying competitive alternatives to in-app purchases. Apple's defenses and justification for those measures were reverse-engineered to hide its anti-competitive motives from the court and investors. The truth began to emerge during a series of evidentiary hearings held by the court in the Epic Action from February 24 through February 26, 2025, in response to a motion from Epic seeking to enforce the injunction and hold Apple in civil contempt. On February 25, 2025, a senior Apple employee testified that the impact on the Company's finances was a key factor in its decision to implement a particular anti-competitive aspect of its 'compliance plan,' and that eliminating this would cost the Company 'hundreds of millions if not billions,' in App Store revenue. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Apple common stock declined by $6.68 per share, or 2.7%. The truth was further revealed on March 7, 2025, when an Apple spokesperson was quoted by multiple news outlets, disclosing that the launch of the Siri generative-AI features would be delayed. Specifically, the spokesperson stated that '[i]t's going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.' In response to this news, the price of Apple common stock declined by $11.59 per share, or 4.8%, the following trading day. The following week, on March 12, 2025, Morgan Stanley published a report, stating that '[t]he delayed rollout of a more advanced Siri means Apple will have fewer features to accelerate iPhone upgrade rates in FY26.' The report presented evidence that around 50% of iPhone owners who did not upgrade to an iPhone 16 said that the delayed Apple Intelligence rollout impacted their decision not to upgrade. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Apple common stock declined by $11.16 per share, or 5.1% over the following two trading sessions. Then, on April 3, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an article criticizing Apple for overpromising on its AI capabilities and chiding the Company that it 'shouldn't announce products until they're sure they can deliver them.' On this news, the price of Apple common stock declined by $20.70 per share, or 9.2%. On April 30, 2025, the court presiding over the Epic Action issued an order finding Apple in willful violation of the Epic Injunction, holding Apple in civil contempt, and referring the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings were appropriate. Finally, on June 9, 2025, Apple held its 2025 Worldwide Developer Conference where it notably failed to announce any updates regarding advanced Siri features beyond that the Company 'needed more time to reach a high quality bar.' Industry commentators were underwhelmed with this news, with CNN commenting that 'it's unlikely that any of the announcements made at Monday's event will change the perception that Apple is behind its competitors in AI.' These disclosures caused the price of Apple common stock to decline by $2.47 per share, or 1.2%. The filing of this action does not alter the previously established deadline to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Pursuant to the June 20, 2025 notice published in connection with the Tucker action, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Apple securities during the Class Period may, no later than August 19, 2025, seek to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott R. Foglietta of BLB&G at 212-554-1903, or via e-mail at BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $40 billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about the firm can be found online at
