|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 12, 2021 6:57:12 GMT 10
Booktopia in court for alleged false or misleading claims on refund rights 10 December 2021
The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against online retailer Booktopia Pty Ltd for making false or misleading representations to consumers about their rights to refunds and other remedies for faulty or damaged goods.
On its website between 10 January 2020 and 2 November 2021, Booktopia allegedly represented that consumers had to notify it of a faulty, damaged or incorrect product within two days of delivery to have a right to a refund or other remedy, and that consumers had no right to refunds on certain products, including digital content and eBooks, in any circumstances.
In addition, in dealings with 19 consumers, Booktopia allegedly represented that it was not obliged to provide a refund or remedy because the consumer had failed to notify Booktopia of a fault within two days of delivery.
The ACCC alleges that the representations on Booktopia’s website and made directly by customer service staff to the 19 consumers were false or misleading because they did not reflect consumers’ rights to obtain a refund or other remedy under the consumer guarantee rights in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
The ACL gives consumers a right to remedies if the goods do not meet the consumer guarantees, including if they are of unacceptable quality. Consumer guarantee rights extend to digital goods, and do not have a two-day expiration date.
“Consumers who buy digital products or buy products online have the same rights as those who shop in physical stores,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Australian consumers have a right to refund, repair or replacement for goods that do not meet their consumer guarantee rights which apply for a reasonable period, and no business can exclude, limit or modify those rights.”
The ACCC received complaints from consumers, including some who were denied a refund because they contacted Booktopia more than two days after they received their product.
“Consumers are not limited to a two-day period in which to notify a seller of problems with the product they have purchased. We allege that Booktopia misled consumers about their rights to refunds or other remedies, and did not allow them to make use of their consumer guarantee rights,” Mr Sims said.
“Booktopia’s conduct may have caused consumers not to seek a refund, replacement or repair for faulty digital products, books and other goods in circumstances where the Australian Consumer Law gave them a right to do so.”
The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, costs and other orders.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 20, 2021 11:52:36 GMT 10
New safety standard for portable non-aerosol fire extinguishers 20 December 2021
A new mandatory safety standard for portable non-aerosol fire extinguishers, published today, will improve existing performance and identification requirements, to reduce the risk of a fire extinguisher not operating correctly during a fire.
The new standard, issued by the Australian Government, replaces the existing standard and strengthens the safety requirements for the labelling and testing of non-aerosol fire extinguishers.
“Fires spread rapidly, risking life and property within seconds and it is vital that fire extinguishers undergo stringent design and construction requirements and testing, before they are supplied,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“The safety standard maintains these important consumer protections, so Australians can continue to have confidence in the safety of fire extinguishers and have easy access to important product information.”
The safety standard is based on the latest voluntary Australian standard, which will ease the regulatory burden for businesses supplying safe fire extinguishers. This standard provides greater clarity to suppliers through new requirements for filling tolerances and labelling, and greater compliance choice for certain testing requirements.
The safety standard applies to the supply of new, and imported second-hand products supplied in Australia for the first time.
“Under the Australian Consumer Law, suppliers of portable fire extinguishers must comply with the safety standard to protect individuals from harm, or risk fines and penalties,” Ms Rickard said.
Non-aerosol fire extinguishers contain substances including water, wet chemical, foam or powder that are discharged in a rapid stream to extinguish a small fire.
Background
The new safety standard, issued by the Australian Government, provides a transition period of 12 months. During the transition period suppliers must meet the requirements of either the:
Consumer Goods (Portable Non-aerosol Fire Extinguishers) Safety Standard 2021, or; Consumer Protection Notice No. 3 of 2004 – Consumer Product Safety Standard: Portable Fire Extinguishers.
After the transition period, suppliers must meet the requirements of the Consumer Goods (Portable Non-aerosol Fire Extinguishers) Safety Standard 2021 only.
More information about the new safety standard is available on the Product Safety Australia website. Release number: 219/21
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 21, 2021 21:56:42 GMT 10
Ford pays penalties for allegedly misleading consumers about Mustang Mach 1 features 21 December 2021
Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Ford) has paid penalties totalling $53,280 after the ACCC issued it with four infringement notices for allegedly misleading consumers about the performance features of the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach 1, in four different versions of brochures promoting these vehicles which were published by Ford.
At various times between October 2020 and April 2021, Ford published on its website four versions of a brochure that allegedly falsely outlined certain features of the Ford Mustang Mach 1. The brochures were also available to consumers through its dealers and its customer relationship centre.
The Ford Mustang Mach 1 is a performance version of the Ford Mustang, and 700 Mustang Mach 1 vehicles were imported into Australia in 2021. The Mustang Mach 1 retails for more than $83,000, which is significantly more expensive than the standard Mustang.
“We allege Ford made serious mistakes in its brochures outlining the features of the more expensive Mustang Mach 1, resulting in false claims being made to consumers in breach of the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“The performance characteristics of the Ford Mustang Mach 1 were an important selling point, so these claims about key features of the Mach 1 vehicle may have led some consumers to buy the car who may otherwise have opted to purchase another vehicle.”
The ACCC alleges the Mustang Mach 1 brochures falsely represented it had the following features, which it does not possess:
Rear parking sensors LED fog lamps Mustang Mach 1 floor mats Ambient lighting in door pockets Torsen limited-slip differential
Three versions of the brochure also allegedly falsely represented the Mustang Mach 1 included adaptive cruise control, when in fact it has regular cruise control.
In addition to paying the penalties specified in the infringement notices, Ford agreed to provide an improved compensation offer to consumers who bought a Mustang Mach 1.
“We began investigating this issue after a number of consumers complained to us about the Mustang Mach 1 brochures and, as a result of ACCC intervention, Ford improved its compensation offer to hundreds of affected consumers,” Mr Sims said.
Under Ford’s compensation offer, consumers who bought a Mustang Mach 1 before 17 August 2021 can choose between two options: returning their vehicle and receiving a full refund, or receiving $5,400 compensation as well as three years of free scheduled servicing and a track day experience at a Supercars event featuring, among others, admission to the event and a ride in one of Ford's race cars.
Almost all Mustang Mach 1 vehicles were purchased before 17 August 2021.
Consumers who bought their Mustang Mach 1 after 16 August 2021 are eligible for the compensation, servicing and track day but do not have the option of returning the vehicle for a full refund under Ford’s compensation offer.
Ford removed the incorrect information from the brochures in April 2021 and began contacting buyers of the Mustang Mach 1 to offer compensation soon after. The compensation offer was finalised in August 2021, following ACCC intervention.
Background
A car’s differential limits the amount of wheelspin when the wheels lose grip as power is applied. A limited-slip differential (LSD) does this by redistributing engine power to the wheels with the most grip. This means the car can travel faster around corners, without the tires losing grip.
The Torsen LSD is a type of LSD manufactured by the JTKET corporation which was included in the left-hand drive version of the Mach 1 in the USA. The right-hand drive Mustang Mach 1 does not have a Torsen LSD but instead contains a Ford LSD with the addition of an external differential oil cooler.
The ACCC issued four infringement notices reflecting different versions of the brochure published at different times within the period.
Note to editors
The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law, which also sets the penalty amount.
The ACCC can issue an infringement notice when it has reasonable grounds to believe a person or business has contravened certain consumer protection provisions in the Australian Consumer Law. Release number: 221/21
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 22, 2021 16:05:56 GMT 10
Industry allowed to collaborate on AdBlue supply arrangements 22 December 2021 The ACCC has granted an urgent interim authorisation permitting manufacturers and other industry stakeholders to collaborate on arrangements for the supply of the diesel exhaust fluid, known as ‘AdBlue’ that is used in most modern diesel vehicles to control noxious emissions. AdBlue manufacturers are seeking to share information and work together to develop solutions to any potential future shortages of refined urea, a key ingredient in AdBlue, as part of a coordinated government and industry response to current global pressures on the supply of urea. “The ACCC’s interim authorisation allows AdBlue manufacturers to cooperate in a number of ways without the risk of breaching competition laws,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims. “This permits the industry, in conjunction with government, to co-ordinate and respond more quickly and effectively to any supply constraints of urea,” Mr Sims said. Following the interim authorisation, the parties can collaborate on issues such as sharing information about stock levels, supply channels and manufacturing opportunities, prioritising access to refined urea and AdBlue according to need (for example, to particular geographical areas or consumers), collaborating on the production of AdBlue and implementing sales limits. “This enables AdBlue manufacturers and the Australian Government to consider the best way to respond to any potential future supply constraints,” Mr Sims said. “The manufacturers’ co-ordination of their response with the Government is an important step in providing a regular supply of AdBlue which is critical to our nation’s transportation sector, food production and the broader economy.” “Importantly the coordination allowed under the interim authorisation can only occur with the oversight of the Federal Government,” Mr Sims said. “AdBlue manufacturers are also required to invite the ACCC to any meetings where these issues are discussed.” Authorisation has not been sought, and interim authorisation has not be granted, for AdBlue manufacturers to share information about or reach agreements on price. “After receiving the applications for authorisation on Monday, we worked very quickly to consider and approve this application,” Mr Sims said. The ACCC will now seek feedback on the application for authorisation. More information, including the ACCC’s Interim Authorisation Decision, is available at: www.accc.gov.au/public-registers/authorisations-and-notifications-registers/authorisations-register/adblue-manufacturersBackground AdBlue is an exhaust system additive used in diesel engines to control noxious emissions and is critical to the operation of modern diesel engines. Refined (technical grade) urea is an essential input in the manufacture of AdBlue. Almost all AdBlue used in Australia is currently manufactured locally. However, almost all of the required refined urea is imported. A number of sectors are reliant on modern diesel engines and therefore AdBlue, including road freight, mining, agriculture and light diesel vehicles (made since 2016). In addition to AdBlue manufacturers the interim authorisation also allows any other parties that are notified to the ACCC to be part of the collaborative effort to develop solutions to any potential future shortages of refined urea. This may include, for example, importers of refined urea, and distributors, wholesalers or retailers of AdBlue in Australia. On 9 December 2021, the Commonwealth Government announced the establishment of an AdBlue Taskforce that will work across government and with industry to ensure that Australia does not face any shortages. The Government noted that options being explored include alternative international supply options for refined urea, bolstering local manufacturing capabilities and technical options at the vehicle level. Notes to editors ACCC authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act (CCA). The CCA allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application. The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation. Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment. Release number: 222/21
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 23, 2021 13:52:07 GMT 10
HBC Trading pays penalties for allegedly misleading Chef's Choice alcohol free 'pure' vanilla extract claims 23 December 2021
Food distributor and retailer HBC Trading Australia Pty Ltd (HBC Trading) has paid penalties of $26,640 after the ACCC issued it with two infringement notices for allegedly making false or misleading representations about its Chef’s Choice-branded ‘alcohol free pure vanilla extract’. Chef’s Choice used the word ‘pure’ in the product’s name and placed an image of vanilla beans and a vanilla flower on the label, despite the extract containing ingredients not derived from vanilla beans. This included flavouring in the form of vanillin derived from clove oil, as well as added colour, glycerine and xanthan gum.
“Vanilla is an expensive and sought-after ingredient that many bakers regard as essential. We are concerned that bakers who intended to buy ‘pure’ vanilla to make their cakes and slices could have been misled into buying extract that included additional flavour from a non-vanilla bean source,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“It is a basic rule of consumer law that what you advertise must be what you supply to your customers. In this case, our concern is that consumers would believe this product contained only an extract of vanilla beans, and not additional ingredients.”
While all ingredients were disclosed on the label, this disclosure was in significantly smaller font than the words ‘pure vanilla’ on the label. “Consumers rely on the accuracy of claims made on food product label, and businesses must ensure their labelling is truthful and not likely to mislead consumers,” Ms Rickard said.
The Chef’s Choice alcohol free pure vanilla extract was sold in retail outlets, including supermarkets, and promoted in an online catalogue published on HBC Trading’s website in October 2021. HBC Trading has also agreed to amend the name and label of the product by removing the word ‘pure’ and renaming it ‘vanilla flavouring’.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jan 12, 2022 10:30:14 GMT 10
CovaU pays penalties for allegedly failing to publish comparison pricing on electricity plans 12 January 2022
Energy retailer CovaU Pty Ltd has paid $33,300 in penalties after the ACCC issued it with three infringement notices for alleged contraventions of the Electricity Retail Code.
The ACCC has reasonable grounds to believe that CovaU contravened the requirements of the Code by advertising the prices of three residential electricity plans on its website without stating a percentage difference to the comparison price set by the government, between 27 June and 19 July 2021.
Retailers are required to include the percentage difference to the comparison price in electricity offers to residential and small business customers. This provides a consistent benchmark to see how a plan compares to other offers from a glance.
CovaU failed to state the percentage difference for the following offers:
‘Freedom Plus Online – Residential Essential Single’ plan ‘Freedom Plus Solar – Residential SA Single’ plan ‘Freedom Plus Online – Residential Endeavour Single’ plan
CovaU has acknowledged that it published a total of 79 plans during this period that did not state a comparison percentage as required by the Code.
“Comparison pricing is vital for consumers searching for the best electricity deal, as it provides a consistent benchmark. The failure to publish comparison pricing, as required by the Electricity Retail Code, deprives consumers of an opportunity to compare the individual plans on a like-with-like basis,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“We are disappointed this is the second time CovaU has paid penalties in relation to its energy plans, and we will continue to monitor compliance with the Code and Australian Consumer Law by CovaU and other electricity providers.”
Background
CovaU is an Australian electricity and gas retailer operating in Australia which services both residential and business customers.
In July 2019, CovaU paid penalties of $12,600 for alleged misleading claims about discounts available on its energy plans in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
The Electricity Retail Code was introduced in July 2019 to reduce confusion and make it easier for consumers to compare retail electricity offers. It imposes rules on electricity providers for how they must advertise prices and conditions on market and standing offers, including stating the lowest possible price of the offer, distribution region and small customer type.
The Code limits the standing offer prices that are charged to consumers in New South Wales, South Australia and south-east Queensland using a cap called the Default Market Offer (DMO) and requires retailers to advertise their prices to residential and small business customers by reference to the DMO and include certain information.
Note to editors
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Feb 14, 2022 8:23:35 GMT 10
Learn how to spot a romance scammer this Valentine's Day 14 February 2022
Scamwatch is urging people to watch out for dating and romance scams after Australians reported losing a record $56 million last year, an increase of 44 per cent.
Over 3,400 reports were received about dating and romance scams in 2021, including many people concerned about a family member who got caught up in a scam. Over half of all reports were about romance scams on social networking websites or dating apps.
Losses to scams are likely to be much higher than reported to Scamwatch, as our research shows that of all scam victims, only around 13% report to Scamwatch.
“It’s important to look out for friends or family members who are using online dating apps and talk about how to spot romance scams,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“Talking about scams, including your own experiences, can help others identify them and may prevent them from falling victim in the future.”
Romance scammers play on emotional triggers to take advantage of victims. They often use ‘love bombing’ techniques, such as professing love and affection very quickly, to try to influence victims.
The scammer will then come up with elaborate stories asking the intended target to send money, gifts or financial information.
Another variation of the scam is called ‘romance baiting’. Once the scammer has developed a connection on a dating app, they will offer to show the victim how to invest, often in cryptocurrency, turning the romance scam into an investment scam.
“Scammers can come up with endless reasons to try and convince you to send money. If you start to feel pressured by your admirer, stop communicating with them,” Ms Rickard said.
“Another red flag to look out for is when scammers provide constant excuses as to why they cannot meet in person or use the video function.”
People aged over 55 made up close to half the losses to romance scams ($25 million), and women reported higher losses than men.
“Never send money or give personal or financial information to someone you’ve only met online. Think very carefully about taking investment or financial advice from someone on a dating app, ” Ms Rickard said.
“Do an internet search with the name or photo of your love interest or some of the phrases they have used to try to identify if it is a scam.”
Anyone who thinks they have been scammed, is advised to contact their bank or financial institution as soon as possible. They should also contact the platform on which they were scammed and inform them of the circumstances of the scam.
As well as financial losses, romance scams can also cause significant emotional suffering. Anyone experiencing emotional distress about their experience with a scam, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14.
For more advice on how to avoid dating and romance scams and what to do if you or someone you know is a victim of a scam, visit the Scamwatch website.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Feb 14, 2022 11:44:40 GMT 10
Hutchinson and CFMMEU engaged in boycott on Brisbane construction site 14 February 2022 The Federal Court has found that construction company J Hutchinson Pty Ltd (Hutchinson) and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) entered an agreement to boycott a subcontractor at a building site in Brisbane, in proceedings brought by the ACCC. In 2016, Hutchinson engaged Waterproofing Industries Qld Pty Ltd (WPI), an independent waterproofing contractor, on the Southpoint A Apartments construction project in Brisbane. Shortly after WPI began supplying services, the CFMMEU informed Hutchinson that it would not permit WPI to work on the Southpoint Project because it was not covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) with the CFMMEU. The Court found that Hutchinson and the CFMMEU reached an agreement that Hutchinson would no longer acquire waterproofing services from WPI and that Hutchinson would terminate WPI to avoid conflict with, or industrial action by, the CFMMEU at the site. Another waterproofing contractor with an EBA with the CFMMEU was later engaged on the site. The Court found that by making and acting on the agreement, Hutchinson contravened sections 45E and 45EA of the Competition and Consumer Act, which prohibit contracts, arrangements or understandings for the purpose of preventing or hindering the acquisition of goods or services from a supplier, which is also referred to as a boycott. “The ACCC is extremely pleased with the Court’s decision today. Boycotts are a kind of anti-competitive conduct which harms the economy as a whole as well as individual businesses,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. “We took this action because we considered the agreement between Hutchinson and the union prevented or hindered Hutchinson’s choice about which businesses to hire, and limited subcontractors’ access to construction markets. This type of agreement is likely to have inflated the costs of construction projects.” Justice Downes said that the evidence provided by the ACCC’s witnesses supported a finding that the motive for the arrangement was “to return to a situation where, as a general rule, subcontractors engaged by Hutchinson at the Southpoint project would have an EBA, being something the CFMMEU pressured Hutchinson to do and which Hutchinson did to avoid industrial action”. The CFMMEU was found to have been knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contraventions of sections 45E and 45EA by Hutchinson. The Court also found that the CFMMEU induced Hutchinson’s contraventions by threatening or implying that there would be conflict with, or industrial action by, the CFMMEU if Hutchinson did not stop using WPI. “We believe this was very serious conduct, and will be putting forward submissions to the Court about the appropriate penalty for this behaviour at a later court hearing,” Mr Sims said. The Court will decide on penalties and other orders at a later date. Background On 4 December 2020, the ACCC instituted civil proceedings about Hutchinson and the CFMMEU in the Federal Court. Hutchinson is one of Australia’s biggest privately owned construction companies with around 1,800 staff and over $2.5 billion worth of projects annually. The CFMMEU is a trade union organisation that represents member employees in a number of industries including the construction industry. At the time of the alleged conduct it was known as the CFMEU. The ACCC was assisted by the Australian Building and Construction Commission during the course of its investigation. The ACCC and the ABCC signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2017, which was extended in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Feb 19, 2022 6:38:24 GMT 10
18 February 2022
The Australian Competition Tribunal has today denied authorisation for the NSW Minerals Council and ten mining companies to collectively negotiate the terms and conditions, including price, of access to the Port of Newcastle to export coal and other minerals.
The Tribunal’s determination sets aside the ACCC’s decision from August 2020 which granted authorisation for collective bargaining at the port. This authorised the mining companies to collectively negotiate the details of details of a proposed 10-year deed with Port of Newcastle Operations (PNO), the port’s operator.
“We decided to grant the authorisation because we considered the conduct was likely to result in minimal detriment because participation was voluntary for mining companies and PNO,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Collective bargaining can facilitate greater efficiencies with the sharing of the time and cost of negotiating contracts and help deliver quicker, more timely resolutions.”
In September 2020, PNO sought the Tribunal’s review of the ACCC's determination. A review by the Tribunal is a re‑hearing of the matter.
In conducting its review, the Tribunal applies the same ‘authorisation test’ as the ACCC. That is, the Tribunal must not grant authorisation unless it is satisfied, in all the circumstances, that the conduct would result or be likely to result in a benefit to the public, and the benefit would outweigh the detriment to the public that would result or be likely to result.
“We will review the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision, which have not yet been made public, to understand why it did not grant authorisation for voluntary collective bargaining in this case,” Mr Sims said.
Background
On 6 March 2020, the NSW Minerals Council applied for authorisation on behalf of themselves and ten mining companies to collectively negotiate with PNO in relation to the terms and conditions of access to the port. Participation in the proposed collective bargaining conduct was voluntary and did not include collective boycott activity.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Mar 28, 2022 12:32:24 GMT 10
Peters Ice Cream to pay $12 million penalty for anti-competitive exclusive dealing 25 March 2022
The Federal Court has ordered that Australasian Food Group, trading as Peters Ice Cream, pay a $12 million penalty for anti-competitive conduct in relation to the distribution of ice creams sold in petrol stations and convenience stores, in proceedings brought by the ACCC.
Peters Ice Cream admitted that, from November 2014 to December 2019, it acquired distribution services from PFD Food Services on condition that PFD would not sell or distribute competitors’ single serve ice cream products in various geographic areas throughout Australia without the prior written consent of Peters Ice Cream.
Peters Ice Cream admitted that in doing so, it had engaged in exclusive dealing conduct that had the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in the market for the supply by manufacturers of single serve ice cream and frozen confectionary products.
Peters Ice Cream owns a number of ice cream brands, including Connoisseur, Drumstick, Maxibon and Frosty Fruits. It is one of two major manufacturers of single serve ice cream products sold in Australian petrol stations and convenience stores.
PFD is Australia’s largest distributor of single serve ice creams and is able to reach more than 90 per cent of Australian postcodes.
“This is an important competition law case involving products enjoyed by many Australians,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“We took this action because we were concerned that Peters Ice Cream’s conduct could reduce competition in this market and impact on the choice of single serve ice creams available to consumers.”
“Peters Ice Cream admitted, that if PFD had not been restricted from distributing other manufacturers’ ice cream products, it was likely that one or more potential competitors would have entered or expanded in this market,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
Potential competitors to Peters Ice Cream in the relevant period for single serve ice creams included Bulla, Gelativo and Pure Pops. PFD was approached by ice cream manufacturers to distribute new single serve ice cream products to some national petrol and convenience retailers. However, PFD advised that it could not distribute those products due to its exclusivity arrangement with Peters.
“This case is a reminder to all businesses of the serious and costly consequences of engaging in anti-competitive conduct,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“The ACCC is targeting exclusive arrangements by firms with market power that impact competition as one of our compliance and enforcement priorities for 2022/23.”
Peters Ice Cream’s restriction on PFD covered much of Australia geographically, including Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia (inclusive of Adelaide from August 2015), ACT, PFD’s Darwin distribution zone, and regional areas in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.
Peters Ice Cream was also ordered to establish a compliance program for a period of three years and pay a contribution to the ACCC’s legal costs.
Peters admitted that it had contravened the Competition and Consumer Act and made joint submissions with the ACCC in respect of penalties and orders.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Apr 5, 2022 13:44:25 GMT 10
Scammers targeting victims again through money recovery scams 5 April 2022
Scamwatch is warning people to be aware of uninvited offers of help to recover money for an up-front payment, following a spike in reports of money recovery scams.
These scams target people who have already lost money to a previous scam by promising to help victims recover their losses after paying a fee in advance. Australians have lost over $270,000 to these scams so far this year, an increase of 301 per cent.
“Scammers will ask for money and personal information before offering to ‘help’ the victim and will then disappear and stop all contact,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“Money recovery scams are particularly nasty as they target scam victims again. These scams can lead to significant psychological distress as many of the people have already lost money or identity information.”
This year Scamwatch has received 66 reports of money recovery scams, a 725 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2021.
Scammers target previous scam victims, contacting them out of the blue, and pose as a trusted organisation such as a law firm, fraud taskforce or government agency. They may have official looking websites and use fake testimonials from other victims they have ‘helped’.
As well as an up-front payment they often ask victims to fill out fake paperwork or provide identity documents. Scammers may request remote access to computers or smart phones, enabling them to scam their unsuspecting victims.
Another tactic scammers use is to contact people by phone or email who haven’t actually been a victim of a scam and convince them that they’ve unknowingly been involved in one and are entitled to a settlement refund.
“If you get contacted out of the blue by someone offering to help recover scam losses for a fee, it is a scam. Hang up the phone, delete the email and ignore any further contacts,” Ms Rickard said.
“Don’t give financial details or copies of identity documents to anyone who you’ve never met in person and never give strangers remote access to your devices.”
“Scammers can be very convincing and one way to spot them is to search online for the name of the organisation who contacted you with words like ‘complaint’, ‘scam’ or ‘review’,” Ms Rickard said.
People who have lost money to a scam should contact their bank or financial institution as soon as possible. If they are not happy with the financial institutions response, victims can make a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority which is a free and independent dispute resolution service. Financial institutions may be able to find where the money was sent, block the scam accounts and help others to avoid sending money to scammers.
People who are a victim of a scam or identity theft should act quickly to reduce the risk of financial loss or other damages. IDCARE (link is external)is a free government-funded service which will help to develop a specific response plan. They will never contact you out of the blue.
For more advice on how to avoid scams and what to do if you or someone you know is a victim of a scam, visit the Scamwatch website. You can also follow @scamwatch_gov (link is external)on Twitter and subscribe to Scamwatch radar alerts. Release number: 43/22
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Apr 13, 2022 17:48:32 GMT 10
Honda in court for allegedly misleading consumers about dealership closures 13 April 2022
The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Honda Australia Pty Ltd for making false or misleading representations to consumers about two former authorised Honda dealerships, Brighton Automotive Holdings Pty Ltd (Astoria) in Victoria and Tynan Motors Pty Ltd (Tynan) in NSW.
The ACCC alleges that between January 2021 and June 2021, Honda Australia represented to customers of Astoria and Tynan that the dealerships would close or had closed and would no longer service Honda vehicles.
In fact, the franchise agreements with Astoria and Tynan had been terminated after Honda’s restructure but both of these businesses were continuing to trade independently and were continuing to service vehicles, including Hondas.
“While Astoria and Tynan were no longer a Honda franchisee, they remained open as independent dealerships and were able to service Honda vehicles,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
The ACCC alleges that in emails, text messages and phone conversations, Honda informed Astoria and Tynan customers that these businesses had closed and directed customers to contact a Honda dealership or Honda Service Centre to book their next service.
“We allege Honda deprived customers of the opportunity to make an informed choice about options for servicing their car in favour of a Honda-linked dealership which may have been less convenient or more costly for them,” Ms Carver said.
“We also allege Honda caused harm to the Astoria and Tynan businesses, by falsely claiming they had closed or would close, which may have led customers to have their Honda vehicles serviced elsewhere.”
“It is important that independent dealerships can service vehicles of all brands, and from 1 July dealerships will have fair access to the necessary technical information from all manufacturers to service and repair all makes of cars,” Ms Carver said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Apr 14, 2022 17:02:03 GMT 10
14 April 2022 The ACCC has filed an appeal against the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss the ACCC’s allegations that Mazda Australia Pty Ltd engaged in unconscionable conduct. In November 2021, the Court found that Mazda engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to nine consumers about their consumer guarantee rights, but dismissed the ACCC’s allegations that Mazda also engaged in unconscionable conduct in its dealings with the consumers. “The case involved seven vehicles with serious and recurring faults. Six of them had engine replacements, including one vehicle which had three engine replacements. The consumers requested a refund or replacement vehicle from Mazda on multiple occasions, but these requests were denied,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said. The faults affected the ability of the consumers to use their vehicles and, in some cases, included the vehicles unexpectedly losing power and decelerating while being driven. “In addition to finding that Mazda made false or misleading representations, the Court found that Mazda gave consumers the “run-around” by engaging in evasion and subterfuges, provided appalling customer service and failed to make any genuine attempt to consider and apply the consumer guarantee provisions of the Australian Consumer Law,” Ms Carver said. “We will argue that based on the Court’s factual findings, Mazda’s conduct fell below the applicable norms of commercial behaviour, and was in all the circumstances unconscionable.” Between 2017 and 2019, each of the affected consumers requested a refund or a replacement vehicle from Mazda after experiencing serious and recurring faults with their new Mazda vehicles within a year or two of purchase. The Court found that Mazda repeatedly ignored or rejected the consumers’ requests, telling them the only available remedy was a repair. After repeated attempted repairs including engine replacements over months and years, in some cases Mazda eventually offered some consumers partial refunds, or a replacement vehicle but only if the consumer made a significant payment toward the vehicle. “Mazda did not follow its own compliance policies in dealing with the consumers’ complaints, and sought to discourage consumers from pursing their right to a refund or a replacement vehicle,” Ms Carver said. Background The ACCC instituted proceedings against Mazda in October 2019. The Federal Court handed down its decision on 30 November 2021. This case concerns seven vehicles and 9 individual consumers. Models include Mazda 2, Mazda 6, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-5B, Mazda CX-3 and Mazda BT-50 purchased between 2013 and 2017. Consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law provide remedies for consumers if their product is not of acceptable quality. Consumers can choose to have a product replaced, repaired or refunded if there is a major failure. There is a major failure if a product is not fit for purpose, cannot be fixed within a reasonable time, or is unsafe. Since December 2020, multiple minor failures may together amount to a major failure. The ACCC has previously accepted court-enforceable undertakings from Volkswagen, Holden, Hyundai and Toyota to improve their Australian Consumer Law compliance. In April 2018 the Federal Court found by consent that Ford engaged in unconscionable conduct in the way it dealt with complaints and ordered them to pay $10 million in penalties. Further information on consumer guarantees is available at Consumer guarantees. The ACCC encourages consumers to use the complaint letter tool to email or write to a business in relation to their rights to a repair, replacement or refund.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on May 14, 2022 9:30:00 GMT 10
Clothing retailer Tiger Mist pays penalties for allegedly misleading consumers about return rights 13 May 2022 Online clothing label and retailer A&S Labels Pty Ltd (trading as Tiger Mist) has paid penalties of $26,640 after the ACCC issued it with two infringement notices for allegedly misleading consumers about their right to return faulty items. Tiger Mist made statements on its website between at least November 2021 and February 2022 that consumers could only return a faulty item by contacting Tiger Mist within 30 days of receiving their order and that the product must be returned in its original packaging. The two infringement notices were issued in relation to statements made on the Returns page of the Tiger Mist website on 21 February 2022. “Under the Australian Consumer Law, a consumer’s right to a remedy for a faulty product is not limited to a specific time period, and consumers do not need to return the faulty product in its original packaging to obtain a refund, replacement or repair,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said. Tiger Mist typically markets to younger consumers through social media posts. “The ACCC was concerned that Tiger Mist’s representations may have misled some consumers into thinking they were not entitled to return a faulty product when that was not the case,” Ms Carver said. The first statement on the Returns page of the Tiger Mist website was: “If you believe an item you’ve purchased from us is faulty, incorrect or you’re missing an item, contact us at customercare@tigermist.com.au with images of the fault. All claims need to be made within 30 days of receiving your order.” The second statement was: “RETURNS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED WHEN: Items are in their original condition. Items are in their original packaging. Tags remain attached to garments. Garments are unworn, unwashed and unstained.” “Consumers have the same rights whether they make a purchase online or instore. All businesses must ensure their refund and returns policy does not misrepresent the consumer guarantee rights under the Australia Consumer Law, and we will continue to look at the practices of clothing retailers, including online retailers, and take enforcement action where appropriate,” Ms Carver said. Consumers can also learn more about their rights to repair, replacement or refund, and their consumer guarantee rights on the ACCC website. Tiger Mist has amended its website and removed the statements to address the ACCC’s concerns. Background Tiger Mist is an international online clothing label and retailer, aimed predominantly at young consumers and promoting its products through social media, based in Melbourne. Release number: 57/22
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on May 18, 2022 16:21:11 GMT 10
Court dismisses Viagogo’s appeal on misleading representations and penalty 18 May 2022
The Full Federal Court today dismissed an appeal by Viagogo AG against earlier decisions by the Federal Court which had found that Viagogo had made misleading claims on its website relating to the reselling of tickets to live music or sporting events.
In dismissing the appeal, the Full Court upheld the earlier court findings and the $7 million penalty imposed for the breaches of the Australian Consumer Law in proceedings brought by the ACCC. When imposing the $7 million penalty, Justice Burley had noted that Viagogo’s conduct was deliberate and that some of Viagogo’s misleading claims were made ‘on an industrial scale’.
“This case was about bad behaviour by an international ticket reseller that deliberately misled thousands of Australian consumers about the price they would have to pay for tickets and falsely represented that those consumers were purchasing tickets from an official site,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
The Full Court upheld the finding made in 2019 that Viagogo had falsely represented that it was the ‘official’ seller of tickets to particular events.
The Full Court also upheld the finding made by the primary judge that from 1 May 2017 to 26 June 2017, Viagogo’s website drew consumers in with a headline price but failed to sufficiently disclose additional fees or specify a single price for tickets, including a 27.6 per cent booking fee which applied to most tickets.
“Viagogo misled music lovers, sporting fans and other consumers who were hoping to get tickets to a special event. Consumers were drawn in by a headline price and were often unaware of the significant fees charged by Viagogo until very late in the booking process when they were already invested in attending the event,” Ms Carver said.
The Full Federal Court stated that ‘had viagogo made it clear that it was operating a ticket resale site, then there would have been no misapprehension by consumers’.
“Businesses must clearly disclose if they charge additional, unavoidable fees on top of the advertised price,” Ms Carver said.
The Court also upheld previous orders made against Viagogo in relation to a compliance program, publication orders, and an injunction.
For further information refer to Consumer tips for buying tickets online.
Background
Viagogo AG is an online ticket resell platform with headquarters in Switzerland.
The ACCC took action against Viagogo in August 2017, and in April 2019 the court found Viagogo had misled consumers and ordered Viagogo to pay a $7 million penalty in October 2020.
The ACCC enforces the Australian Consumer Law which applies to tickets as well as other consumer goods and services. In recent years various state and territory governments have also introduced specific legislation regulating the reselling of tickets, such as maximum price caps.
The ACCC published guides for consumers on how to purchase event tickets with confidence at Buying tickets online.
Consumers with queries about their state or territory’s ticket reselling laws should contact their state or territory’s fair trading or consumer affairs agency.
Notes for editors
|
|