|
Post by dieseltojo on May 30, 2022 17:57:14 GMT 10
Mastercard in court for alleged misuse of market power over card payments 30 May 2022
The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd and Mastercard Asia/Pacific (Australia) Pty Ltd (together, Mastercard), for allegedly engaging in conduct with the purpose of substantially lessening competition in the supply of debit card acceptance services.
Mastercard’s alleged anti-competitive conduct commenced in late 2017 in the context of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s least cost routing initiative.
The RBA’s least cost routing initiative aimed to increase competition in the supply of debit card acceptance services and reduce payment costs for businesses by allowing them to choose the lowest cost network to process their transactions. This enabled businesses to choose whether their debit transactions were processed by Visa, Mastercard or eftpos, with eftpos often being the cheapest option.
It is alleged that in response to the least cost routing initiative, Mastercard entered into agreements with more than 20 major retail businesses, including supermarkets, fast food chains and clothing retailers.
The agreements gave these businesses discounted rates for Mastercard credit card transactions, provided they committed to processing all or most of their Mastercard-eftpos debit card transactions through Mastercard rather than the eftpos network. This meant that these businesses would not process significant debit card volumes through the eftpos network even though eftpos was often the lowest cost provider.
“We allege that Mastercard had substantial power in the market for the supply of credit card acceptance services, and that a substantial purpose of Mastercard’s conduct was to hinder the competitive process by deterring businesses from using eftpos for processing debit transactions,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“We are concerned that Mastercard’s alleged conduct meant that businesses did not receive the full benefit of the increased competition that was intended to flow from the least cost routing initiative.”
“Reducing costs for businesses enables them to offer their customers better prices. Making sure the major card schemes, Mastercard, Visa and eftpos, compete vigorously is important for both those businesses and their customers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“Promoting competition and investigating allegations of anti-competitive conduct in the financial services sector, with a focus on payment systems, is a priority for the ACCC. Financial service providers should be on notice that we will not hesitate to take action in response to concerns raised about anti-competitive conduct in this important sector of Australia’s economy.”
“This case also demonstrates the ACCC’s heightened interest in addressing competitive harm caused by exclusive arrangements engaged in by firms with market power,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jun 8, 2022 15:50:14 GMT 10
Airbnb allegedly misled Australians about accommodation prices 8 June 2022
The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Airbnb, Inc. and Airbnb Ireland UC (together, Airbnb) for allegedly misleading consumers into believing prices for Australian accommodation were in Australian dollars, when in fact for many consumers prices were in US dollars.
The ACCC alleges that, between at least January 2018 and August 2021, Airbnb made false or misleading representations to thousands of Australian consumers by displaying prices on its website or mobile app for Australian accommodation using only a dollar sign ($), without making it clear that those prices were in US dollars.
While on at least some occasions Airbnb referred to the price as ‘USD’ in small font on the last page of the booking process, this happened only after the platform had already displayed numerous dollar (‘$’) amounts on earlier pages, without nearby reference to US dollars, and after the consumer had clicked to ‘reserve’ their accommodation.
When thousands of consumers complained to Airbnb about being charged more than the displayed price, the ACCC alleges that Airbnb engaged in further misleading or deceptive conduct by telling many of them that it had displayed prices in US dollars because the user had selected this currency, when this was often not the case.
“We allege that Airbnb’s misleading conduct meant that consumers were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed choice about whether, and at what price, to book their holiday accommodation on the Airbnb platform,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“In addition to paying higher prices than expected, some consumers who were charged in US dollars also found themselves further out of pocket through currency conversion fees charged by their credit card provider.”
Between January 2018 and August 2021, the average Australian dollar to US dollar exchange rate was about $0.72 USD. At this rate, an Australian consumer who thought they were paying $500 for their accommodation booking would have actually paid almost $700 AUD, before any foreign currency conversion fees.
“Airbnb did not compensate many consumers who complained about this conduct, and so we will be arguing that the court should order Airbnb to compensate people who were misled about the price of their accommodation,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“Despite thousands of consumers complaining to Airbnb about the way prices were displayed, Airbnb didn’t amend its booking platform until after the ACCC raised the issue.”
The ACCC expects all businesses to regularly review and appropriately address issues revealed by the consumer complaints they are receiving.
“By taking this action, we are stating very clearly that digital platforms like Airbnb need to ensure the accuracy of all statements that may affect consumers’ purchasing decisions,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, orders for the compensation for affected consumers, costs, and other orders.
The ACCC is asking consumers who experienced problems with the currency displayed on Airbnb’s booking platform, or explanations given to them by Airbnb about the prices they were charged, to contact its Infocentre via this contact form
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jun 9, 2022 12:51:13 GMT 10
there is a graph on the actual page......
Broadband speeds increase for all consumers but urban services still perform better 9 June 2022
Consumers in both urban and regional Australia who have fixed-line NBN services have seen a significant improvement in download speeds since November 2018, the ACCC’s latest Measuring Broadband Australia report shows.
Urban areas (cities with a population of 10,000 people) saw an improvement in all hours download speeds from 85.7 per cent in the 2018 report to 98.2 per cent of plan speeds in February 2022, while regional areas also improved from 83.7 per cent to 95.2 percent of plan speeds.
Chart 1. Average download performance by geography comparison
However, urban Australians on fixed-line NBN services continue to enjoy faster download and upload speeds than people in regional areas. In February 2022, on average, consumers in urban areas received 98.2 per cent of the expected download speed of their plan during all hours, compared to 95.2 per cent of plan speed for regional consumers.
Upload speed performance had a greater disparity, with urban consumers receiving 85.3 per cent of plan speed during all hours compared to 80.1 per cent for regional consumers.
“Regional fixed-line services have improved over the last four years, but still have some way to go to be on par with urban connections,” ACCC Commissioner Anna Brakey said.
Retailers’ speeds dropped in February
Across all of Australia, retail service providers’ average download and upload speeds during busy hours were between 84.4 and 102.4 per cent of plan speed in February 2022, a decline compared to the range of 95.1 and 103.3 per cent of plan speed in December 2021.
“Speeds are generally holding up well, however, most retailers experienced a small drop in speed in February during the busy evening hours,” Ms Brakey said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jun 30, 2022 8:08:22 GMT 10
ACCC alleges Ultra Tune in contempt of court 28 June 2022
The ACCC has instituted contempt of court proceedings against Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd (Ultra Tune) for allegedly breaching court orders which restrained Ultra Tune from contravening parts of the Franchising Code of Conduct (Franchising Code) and for allegedly failing to comply with the requirements of a court-ordered compliance program.
In 2019, Ultra Tune was found to have breached the Australian Consumer Law and the Franchising Code and the Court made orders that required Ultra Tune to provide disclosure documents and marketing fund statements to franchisees in compliance with the Franchising Code.
The ACCC alleges that between 2019 and 2021, while the court orders were in effect, Ultra Tune failed to update its disclosure document on time and failed to prepare two marketing fund statements within the timeframe required by the Franchising Code.
Ultra Tune allegedly did not prepare marketing fund statements and audit reports for the 2019 and 2020 financial years until well after the date on which the Franchising Code required them to do. These documents provide transparency on how the marketing funds which Ultra Tune required franchisees to pay were spent. Ultra Tune was also late in updating its disclosure document in 2020.
“We allege that Ultra Tune disregarded its obligations under the Franchising Code, which are designed to provide transparency to franchisees,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 6, 2022 10:27:44 GMT 10
Scam losses to culturally diverse communities, people with disability and Indigenous Australians almost doubled in 2021 6 July 2022
Scammers stole over $66 million last year from Indigenous Australians, people who identified as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD), and people with disability, according to new data from the ACCC’s annual Targeting Scams report.
“Scammers generally cast their nets very wide, but some specifically target groups such as Indigenous Australians and CALD communities,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“Unfortunately, we saw some vulnerable members of the community lose significantly more money to scams last year.”
In 2021, Scamwatch received 4,958 reports from Indigenous Australians, with $4.8 million in losses. This represents a 43 per cent increase in reports and 142 per cent increase in losses since 2020.
Younger Indigenous Australians lost more money than older Indigenous Australians, which is a reverse of the overall trend of financial losses to scams increasing with age. The most financially damaging scams for Indigenous communities were investment scams, followed by phishing scams and romance scams.
The report shows that scams impacting CALD communities made up five per cent of all reports to Scamwatch, and almost 13 per cent of the total losses. Members of CALD communities reported $42 million in losses, which is an 88 per cent increase compared to 2020.
The most financially damaging scams for CALD communities were investment scams, followed by romance scams and scams involving threats to life, arrest or other.
Members of CALD communities who reported a financial loss to Scamwatch on average lost $1,200, compared to an average loss of $845 for all people.
The main financial losses were incurred through investment scams in the form of ponzi scams and pyramid scheme apps such as Hope Business and Wonderful World. These scams impacted younger people in CALD communities more than any other group.
People from CALD communities were also over-represented in financial losses due to scams involving threats to life, arrest and other, and identity theft.
“The Australian Government will never threaten you with immediate arrest. Always stop to consider who you might be dealing with, and if you’re not sure if the call is legitimate, hang up and call the organisation directly using contact details you independently source,” Ms Rickard said.
“If you think scammers might have gained access to your personal information, contact your bank immediately.”
People who identified as having a disability made 15,387 reports to Scamwatch last year and lost more than $19.6 million to scams. This is a 104 per cent increase in reports and 102 per cent increase in financial losses compared to 2020.
“There was record amounts of scam disruption last year across the public and private sectors, but scammers are unscrupulous and clearly more needs to be done,” Ms Rickard said.
“As vulnerable consumers can be difficult to reach through traditional channels, we also encourage the wider community to assist in sharing warnings about scams.”
The ACCC regularly engages in Indigenous outreach programs and shares scam warnings on the Your Rights Mob(link is external) Facebook page.
Consumers can follow @scamwatch_gov(link is external) on Twitter and subscribe to Scamwatch radar alerts.
The ACCC’s Little Black Book of Scams is available in ten languages to help the community understand and avoid scams.
More information on scams is available on the Scamwatch website, including how to make a report and where to get help.
Background
The ACCC-run Scamwatch aims to raise awareness about how to recognise, avoid and report scams. It also shares intelligence and works with government, law enforcement and the private sector to disrupt and prevent scams.
Reference to combined reports or losses include data from Scamwatch, ReportCyber, other government agencies, and banks and financial institutions. Adjustments were made to avoid counting reports or losses multiple times.
The report otherwise uses Scamwatch data, which is based on phone and web reports made to Scamwatch between 1 January and 31 December 2021. Release number: 85/22
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Aug 1, 2022 8:55:08 GMT 10
LNG exporters must divert gas to the domestic market to avoid shortfalls 1 August 2022
The ACCC’s July 2022 Interim gas report, released today, forecasts the east coast of Australia could face a shortfall of 56 PJ in 2023. At the same time last year, our Gas Inquiry interim report found 2022 could face a 2PJ shortfall.
“Our latest gas report finds that the outlook for the east coast gas market has significantly worsened. To protect energy security on the east coast we are recommending the Resources Minister initiate the first step of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism (ADGSM),” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“We are also strongly encouraging LNG exporters to immediately increase their supply into the market.”
Much of the gas produced in Australia’s east coast is produced by companies that are also LNG exporters.
The ACCC’s report raises concerns about the high level of market concentration, noting that LNG exporters and associates had influence over almost 90 per cent of the proven and probable (2P) reserves in the east coast in 2021 through direct interests, joint ventures and exclusivity arrangements.
The east coast of Australia is forecast to produce 1981 petajoules (PJ) of gas in 2023 of which 1299 PJ, or 65.6 per cent, is forecast to be exported overseas under long term contacts. LNG exporters are also expected to produce a further 167 PJ over what they require to meet their contractual commitments.
This excess gas is not contractually committed and could be supplied into either the domestic market or the international LNG market.
“Increasingly, LNG exporters have diverted most of their excess gas to overseas spot markets, with as much as 70 per cent of the excess volume going overseas in recent years,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“If LNG exporters were to provide all of their excess gas to overseas markets, the east coast gas market would be facing a supply shortfall 56 PJ.”
LNG exporters have been net withdrawers of gas from the domestic market since 2021, purchasing more gas from domestic producers than they supply to domestic customers, which has worsened the gas shortfall. The volume of gas withdrawn by LNG producers is increasing and is estimated to reach 57.6 PJ of gas from the domestic market in 2023 (see Chart 2).
Chart 1: Forecast east coast supply-demand balance in 2022/23
Source: ACCC analysis of data obtained from gas producers as at May 2022 and of the domestic demand forecast (Progressive Change scenario) from AEMO's March 2022 GSOO. Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Chart 2: LNG exporters' net contributions to the east coast gas market
Source: ACCC analysis of data obtained from LNG exporters as at May 2022.
The report highlights concerns that some LNG exporters are not engaging with the domestic market in the spirit of a Heads of Agreement signed in early 2021, which commits LNG exporters to offer uncontracted gas to the domestic market first on internationally competitive market terms before it is exported.
A well-functioning Heads of Agreement with LNG exporters could ensure that LNG exporters make gas broadly and transparently available to all domestic users (including commercial and industrial users and gas-powered generators and retailers) at demonstrably competitive prices, in volumes and for periods suitable to buyers' needs, and with sufficient notice.
The Government has committed to renegotiating the Heads of Agreement.
“Under the Heads of Agreement, exporters can offer excess gas to domestic market participants through an expression of interest process. We are concerned that domestic gas users don’t always have reasonable notice of these offers, and that LNG exporters do not make counter-offers to bids, which could indicate they are not seriously engaging in the domestic market,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“We welcome the announcement by the Minister for Resources that Australian Government has decided to review and renegotiate the ADGSM and the Heads of Agreement with LNG exporters,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. “Both mechanisms are critical to ensuring adequate supply to the domestic market in 2023 and future years.”
Concerns about upstream competition and the timeliness of supply
The ACCC has examined upstream competition and timeliness of supply and found that this market is highly concentrated and dominated by the three LNG exporters and their associates.
The LNG exporters influence supply through numerous joint ventures and exclusivity agreements.
“With the high degree of concentration in this part of the market, we have observed that joint ventures, joint marketing and exclusivity arrangements are contributing to the lack of effective upstream competition in the east coast,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“They may also increase the risk of coordinated conduct and increase the market power of the LNG exporters. This is particularly concerning given the current supply conditions and the reliance on the LNG exporters to meet domestic supply.”
Notes
The report emphasises that the ACCC’s net contribution calculation is based solely on the LNG exporters' supply into the domestic market under gas supply agreements, and withdrawals from the domestic market under purchases from third parties.
Our approach does not consider whether these purchases from third parties are 'third party export compatible gas' as defined in the ADGSM and as the question of determining if gas in 'third party export compatible gas' is a matter for the Minister for Resources under the ADGSM Guidelines, the ACCC has not collected information from parties that would help determine this question.
Background
On 19 April 2017, the Australian Government directed the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into the supply of and demand for wholesale gas in Australia and publish regular information on the supply and pricing of gas for three years. On 25 July 2019, this inquiry was extended until December 2025.
The ACCC is required to submit interim reports at least six-monthly and provide information to the market as appropriate, with a final report by 30 December 2025.
On 21 January 2021, the Australian Government announced a new Heads of Agreement had been signed which commits LNG exporters to offer uncontracted gas to the domestic market first on internationally competitive market terms before it is exported. The new Heads of Agreement was entered into in late December 2020 and operates over 2021–23.
On 30 November 2021, gas suppliers and gas users agreed to a voluntary industry Code of Conduct for the negotiation and development of Gas Supply Agreements. The code was due to commence on 1 June 2022 but has been delayed.
On 7 February 2022, the ACCC received a direction from the then Assistant Treasurer to examine Incitec Pivot’s gas tender process for its Gibson Island plant. We have reported on this using producers’ responses to compulsory information notices, in addition to information voluntarily provided by Incitec Pivot.
On 6 June 2022, the Treasurer wrote to the ACCC conveying his concern about the significant increases in wholesale electricity and gas prices and setting out his expectation that the ACCC will ensure the factors influencing prices in the market are made transparent, making any appropriate policy recommendations and investigate concerns about anti-competitive and false and misleading conduct in electricity and gas markets. Release number: 98/22
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Aug 6, 2022 8:02:27 GMT 10
Consumers warned about fake investment opportunities as losses top $20m 3 August 2022
Losses to imposter bond investment scams have nearly tripled in the first half of this year with consumers losing over $20 million to these sophisticated scams.
Imposter bond scams usually impersonate real financial companies or banks and claim to offer government/Treasury bonds or fixed term deposits.
People often fall victim to them after searching online for investment opportunities and completing enquiry forms via fake third-party comparison sites.
The latest Scamwatch data reveals there were 228 reports of imposter bond scams between January and June, compared with 82 reports in the first half of last year.
Losses suffered by Australian victims of imposter bond scams increased by 265 per cent in the first half of the year, compared to the same period last year. However, the true losses to these scams are likely to be much higher, as research shows that only around 13 per cent of scam victims report their losses to Scamwatch.
“We are seeing an alarming increase in imposter bond scams, so we are urging Australians to be very cautious when presented with investment opportunities,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Aug 6, 2022 8:04:55 GMT 10
Telstra undertakes to address 5G competition concerns 3 August 2022 The ACCC has accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from Telstra to address competition concerns about Telstra’s registration of radiocommunications sites in low band spectrum that interfered with Optus’ plans to roll out its 5G network nationally. Following an intensive investigation, the ACCC was concerned that Telstra’s registrations of these sites had the substantial purpose or likely effect of preventing or hindering Optus from deployment of its 5G network and from engaging in competitive conduct in the retail mobile market. Access to low band spectrum is crucial to providing core network coverage for mobile services and the rollout of 5G. The undertaking requires Telstra to deregister all remaining radiocommunications sites it registered with the ACMA in the 900 MHz spectrum band in January 2022 that would have prevented Optus from early access to the spectrum. “Telstra’s undertaking will ensure Optus is not hindered from expanding its 5G rollout, giving more Australians access to a choice of 5G services in regional and metropolitan Australia,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said. “This is critical as 5G network coverage becomes an increasingly important factor in consumer choice in mobile phones and mobile plans.” “Telstra’s undertaking promptly addresses the ACCC’s competition concerns and stops the likely harm to competition and consumers quickly. It is an efficient and effective way to achieve a positive market outcome,” Ms Carver said. “We were concerned that Telstra’s registration of 315 radiocommunications sites in the 900 MHz spectrum band had the substantial purpose or likely effect of lessening competition by Optus, as Telstra knew of the importance of this spectrum band to Optus’ 5G rollout plan.” “Competition is key to driving innovation and investment in new technology and providing consumers with greater choice, better quality services and lower prices,” Ms Carver said “The ACCC will continue to closely monitor the market.” Telstra has also undertaken to ensure that its board of directors, CEO and other senior staff are given competition law compliance training. A copy of the undertaking is available at Telstra Corporation Limited.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Aug 13, 2022 21:10:52 GMT 10
Google LLC to pay $60 million for misleading representations 12 August 2022
The Federal Court has ordered Google LLC to pay $60 million in penalties for making misleading representations to consumers about the collection and use of their personal location data on Android phones between January 2017 and December 2018, following court action by the ACCC.
The Court previously found that Google LLC and Google Australia Pty Ltd (together, Google) had breached the Australian Consumer Law by representing to some Android users that the setting titled “Location History” was the only Google account setting that affected whether Google collected, kept and used personally identifiable data about their location.
In fact, another Google account setting titled “Web & App Activity” also enabled Google to collect, store and use personally identifiable location data when it was turned on, and that setting was turned on by default.
“This significant penalty imposed by the Court today sends a strong message to digital platforms and other businesses, large and small, that they must not mislead consumers about how their data is being collected and used,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Aug 31, 2022 17:17:21 GMT 10
CFMEU and Hutchinson to pay penalties for boycott conduct 30 August 2022
The Federal Court has today ordered the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and construction company J Hutchinson Pty Ltd (Hutchinson) to pay penalties of $750,000 and $600,000 respectively for boycott conduct in breach of competition laws, in proceedings brought by the ACCC.
This follows the Court’s earlier finding that the CFMEU and Hutchinson entered into an agreement to boycott a waterproofing subcontractor at a Brisbane building site, meaning the subcontractor could no longer perform the work.
The penalty imposed on the CFMEU is the maximum penalty that could be imposed for the CFMEU’s contravening conduct in this case.
“Given the penalties available for breaches of the boycott provisions, the Court’s decision should send a strong deterrence message to the union and Hutchinson, as well as to other businesses, that boycott conduct is illegal,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
In her judgment imposing these penalties, Justice Downes said the conduct of the CFMEU was to be regarded as another instance of its “pursuit of a strategy of deliberate recalcitrance in order to have its way” and that “its determination to adhere to its strategy of requiring subcontractors on construction sites to have an EBA in defiance of the law is a significant consideration”.
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 CFMEU 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 CFMEU.
The Court found that Hutchinson and the CFMEU 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 CFMEU at the site. Another waterproofing contractor which did have an EBA with the CFMEU was later engaged on the site.
The Court also held that the CFMEU induced Hutchinson’s contraventions by threatening or implying that there would be conflict with, or industrial action by, the CFMEU if Hutchinson did not stop using the subcontractor.
“This type of conduct not only impacts the targeted company, but also competition in the industry more generally and is likely to inflate the cost of construction projects,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The Court also made other orders including CFMEU publishing the outcome of the Court's decision on its website and the CFMEU and Hutchinson to pay the ACCCs costs of the proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Sept 2, 2022 11:43:03 GMT 10
Mercedes to pay $12.5m for failing to comply with Takata recall communication plan 2 September 2022
The Federal Court has ordered Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd (Mercedes-Benz) to pay penalties of $12.5 million for failing to use attention-capturing, high-impact language when communicating with consumers about the compulsory recall of potentially deadly Takata airbags.
Mercedes admitted that it had breached the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by failing to implement its communication and engagement plan for contacting consumers as required by the Takata Recall Notice when it communicated with some consumers about the Takata recall.
Defective Takata airbags have been associated with about 33 deaths and over 350 injuries globally. In Australia, one person died and another was seriously injured in separate incidents caused by the misdeployment of a Takata airbag.
“We believe the statements made by Mercedes-Benz staff had the potential to give the impression to consumers that the airbag replacement was less urgent than was warranted by the real risks posed by the faulty airbags,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
In conversations with 27 consumers, Mercedes-Benz call centre staff described the recall as a ‘precaution’, or said words to the effect that the type of airbags used in Mercedes vehicles had not caused any accidents, injuries or deaths in other manufacturers vehicles, when that was not accurate.
The Takata Recall Notice required vehicle manufacturers to implement a communication and engagement plan for contacting consumers and use appropriately urgent terms to maximise rates of replacements of Takata airbags.
“Given the risks of misdeployment increased over time, we were concerned about the risks of any potential for delay in having these faulty airbags replaced,” Ms Rickard said.
Under the Takata airbag recall, suppliers were required to recall and replace defective Takata airbags by 31 December 2020 and develop and implement a plan to communicate with consumers to maximise replacement of these airbags.
“The faulty Takata airbags have the potential to misdeploy and send sharp metal fragments into the vehicle cabin at high speed, which could kill or seriously injure the occupants,” Ms Rickard said.
“The faulty Takata airbags were a potentially deadly issue, and it was vital for the safety of Australian drivers and passengers that manufacturers took the risks seriously, and clearly communicated the risks to consumers.”
“This is the first time a company has been penalised for failing to comply with a mandatory recall notice. This judgment sends a strong signal that companies must comply with their product safety obligations under the ACL.”
Mercedes-Benz has also provided a court-enforceable undertaking, which has been accepted by the ACCC, to conduct a product-safety compliance program about product safety obligations, including mandatory recalls. A copy of the undertaking can be found at Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd.
The orders follow admissions made by Mercedes-Benz and joint submissions by the ACCC and Mercedes-Benz to the Federal Court.
For further information about the cars affected by the recall, consumers can visit Product Safety Australia or contact their manufacturer to check if their vehicle is affected by the compulsory recall.
Note for Editors
The Takata airbag recall is the world's largest automotive recall affecting an estimated 100 million vehicles globally. It is the most significant recall in Australian history affecting over 4 million Takata airbags in around 3 million vehicles.
Takata airbags were defective by design, where moisture could permeate the airbag inflator’s casing and degrade the propellant used to inflate the airbag. Over time the risk of pressure building up and the metal casing exploding into the vehicle’s cabin with catastrophic effects, if the airbag was triggered, increased.
Under the Takata recall notice, which was issued by the Assistant Treasurer and came into effect on 1 March 2018, suppliers were required to recall and replace defective Takata airbags by 31 December 2020 and develop and implement a plan to communicate with consumers and maximise replacement of defective Takata airbags.
The Takata Recall Notice applies to Affected Takata Airbag Inflators. These are commonly known as Alpha or Beta (also known as non-Alpha) airbags. Both Alpha and Beta airbags pose a risk of death or injury, with Alpha airbags posing a significantly higher safety risk because they have been shown to rupture more frequently. Mercedes-Benz used beta airbags in the vehicles affected by the Recall Notice.
As of July 2021, car manufacturers have successfully recalled 99.9 per cent of vehicles affected by these airbags.
Expert advice provided to the ACCC, which formed the basis for the compulsory recall, indicates that the risk of a defective Takata airbag rupturing may arise between 6 and 25 years after it is installed in a vehicle. In areas of high heat and humidity, the risk of rupture may arise between 6 and 9 years.
Background
Mercedes-Benz is an importer and wholesaler of passenger cars for the Australia/Pacific region and is owned by parent company Daimler AG, a multinational automotive company.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Sept 6, 2022 11:34:41 GMT 10
HICC failed to tell consumers of cooling-off period in unsolicited sales of private health insurance 6 September 2022 Health insurance comparison business Health Insurance Comparison Choosewell Pty Ltd (HICC) has admitted breaching the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by failing to inform consumers of their termination rights, including a 10 business day cooling-off period, when entering into unsolicited consumer agreements for private health insurance. HICC engaged businesses as third party lead generators to initiate unsolicited contact by telephone with consumers on its behalf before negotiating agreements with those consumers for the supply of health insurance services by a partnered insurance provider. HICC has admitted that it entered into unsolicited consumer agreements without informing consumers verbally and in writing of their rights under the ACL to terminate the contract, how they could terminate the contract, and that the health insurance provider was not allowed to seek payment until after the 10 business day cooling-off period. The ACCC has accepted a three-year court-enforceable undertaking from HICC in which HICC commits to not entering into unsolicited sales contracts without giving consumers verbal and written information about their termination rights, and notifying the relevant health insurance provider that the contract resulted from an unsolicited consumer agreement. In addition, following the issue of an infringement notice by the ACCC, HICC has paid a penalty of $13,320 relating to its admitted failure to give a consumer information about their termination rights in writing after the telephone call in which the agreement was negotiated. The ACL contains consumer protections which apply to specific unsolicited sales practices, such as door-to-door sales or telemarketing. “Businesses are reminded they cannot avoid their obligations in relation to unsolicited consumer agreements under the Australian Consumer Law by employing third party lead generators to contact consumers on their behalf,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said. “The Australian Consumer Law is designed to protect consumers from salespeople who contact them without prior invitation or request at home, in public, or over the telephone.”
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Sept 14, 2022 17:31:15 GMT 10
Court orders two roof tiling businesses and their directors pay $420,000 for cartel conduct 14 September 2022
The Federal Court has today ordered two Sydney suppliers of slate roofing services and the sole directors of each business to pay penalties totalling $420,000 for engaging in cartel conduct, following court proceedings brought by the ACCC.
The Court declared that First Class Slate Roofing Pty Ltd (First Class), RAD Roofing Specialists Pty Ltd (trading as Mr Shingles), and their respective sole directors Scott Barton and Damian Hand, engaged in bid rigging of two slate roofing projects in Sydney in 2019, one at the Wesley College at the University of Sydney and the other a residential project in Sydney’s Bellevue Hill.
The businesses admitted that the purpose of the Wesley College tender bid rigging arrangement was to make First Class more likely than Mr Shingles to win the tender to supply and install slate roofing at Wesley College. Mr Shingles and another competing business each agreed with First Class to submit higher prices in exchange for a cash payment from First Class.
First Class and Mr Shingles were found to have also engaged in bid rigging in relation to a tender for a residential building project in Sydney’s Bellevue Hill, where the purpose was to ensure that Mr Shingles would be more likely than First Class to be the successful tenderer.
First Class ultimately won the Wesley College tender and Mr Shingles eventually won the tender for the residential Bellevue Hill project. First Class accepted that, through its director Scott Barton, it initiated the bid rigging conduct on each occasion.
“The Court accepted that First Class, Mr Shingles and their respective sole directors engaged in deliberate conduct that involved aspects of falsification and concealment,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
“It was also accepted that these businesses and their directors benefited from the cartel conduct which had the effect of denying their customers the benefit of genuine competitive tender offers, including the opportunity to attempt to negotiate a lower contract price for the roofing services that were provided.”
“Cartel conduct, including bid rigging as was engaged in by these firms and individuals, distorts and corrupts the competitive process and denies customers the benefits of fair competition,” Ms Carver said.
“For this reason, cartel conduct is an enduring compliance and enforcement priority for the ACCC.”
First Class was ordered to pay penalties of $280,000, and its director Scott Barton was ordered to pay $60,000 in penalties. Mr Shingles was ordered to pay penalties of $65,000, and its director Damian Hand was ordered to pay $15,000 in penalties.
The Court considered that these penalties were appropriate after receiving submissions about the personal and financial circumstances of each of the parties, including the two individuals involved.
The companies and their directors are also subject to injunctions, restraining each of them for three years from engaging in bid rigging conduct for the supply, installation, maintenance or repair of roofing.
The Court also ordered Mr Barton and Mr Hand to publish an educative notice to members of the Roofing Industry Association of NSW Incorporated about their unlawful conduct as well as participate in education or training programs in competition law.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Sept 23, 2022 14:48:15 GMT 10
Customers warned to watch out for scams following Optus data breach Scamwatch is warning Optus customers to be on the look out for scams and take steps to secure their personal information following a cyber-attack. A cyber-attack has resulted in the release of Optus customers’ personal information. If you are an Optus customer your name, date of birth, phone number, email addresses may have been released. For some customers identity document numbers such as driver’s licence or passport numbers could be in the hands of criminals. It is important to be aware that you be may be at risk of identity theft and take urgent action to prevent harm. Optus customers should take immediate steps to secure all of their accounts, particularly their bank and financial accounts. You should also monitor for unusual activity on your accounts and watch out for contact by scammers. Steps you can take to protect your personal information include: • Secure your devices and monitor for unusual activity • Change your online account passwords and enable multi factor authentication for banking • Check your accounts for unusual activity such as items you haven’t purchased • Place limits on your accounts or ask you bank how you can secure your money • If you suspect fraud you can request a ban on your credit report. More information about how to protect yourself is available on the OAIC website. Check the Optus website for information and contact Optus via the My Optus App or call 133 937. Scammers may use your personal information to contact you by phone, text or email. Never click on links or provide personal or financial information to someone who contacts you out of the blue. Learn how to protect yourself from scams by visiting www.scamwatch.gov.auIf you are concerned that your identity has been compromised or you have been a victim of a scam contact your bank immediately and call IDCARE on 1800 595 160. IDCARE is Australia’s national identity and cyber support service, to get expert advice from a specialist identity and cyber security service. You can also report scams to Scamwatch www.scamwatch.gov.au and check cyber.gov.au for information about cyber security.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Sept 29, 2022 14:58:34 GMT 10
THL's proposed acquisition of Apollo not opposed, subject to divestiture 29 September 2022
The ACCC will not oppose the proposed acquisition of Apollo (ASX:ATL) by THL, after accepting a court-enforceable undertaking that requires Apollo to divest a large proportion of its newest motorhome fleet.
THL and Apollo are involved in the rental, sale and manufacture of recreational vehicles (RVs), such as motorhomes and campervans.
“THL and Apollo are the two largest suppliers of rental RVs in Australia and are each other’s closest competitor in a market where smaller rivals and potential entrants appear to face challenges achieving comparable scale,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
The ACCC released a Statement of Issues on 28 April 2022 outlining preliminary competition concerns regarding the proposed acquisition.
The removal of THL’s largest and closest competitor raised concerns that consumers would pay more to rent RVs or receive lower quality products and service.
To address the ACCC’s concerns, THL and Apollo subsequently offered a court-enforceable undertaking to divest 200 (around 80 per cent) of the four to six berth motorhomes in Apollo’s Australian rental fleet and associated forward bookings to an ACCC approved purchaser.
The ACCC conducted public consultation on the undertaking on 6 September 2022.
The undertaking also includes the divestment of leases for Apollo rental branches and depots in Alice Springs, Darwin, Hobart and Perth, and the Apollo Star RV motorhome brand.
THL and Apollo proposed Jucy as the up-front purchaser of the divested assets. Jucy currently operates campervan rental businesses in Australia and New Zealand. The ACCC has approved Jucy as the purchaser.
Jucy was recently acquired by Next Capital. Next Capital is well placed, with Jucy’s existing fleet and the divested Apollo assets, to ensure Jucy is a strong competitor in the supply of rental RVs.
“The ACCC is satisfied that the undertaking addresses the competition concerns and considers that Jucy will be able to compete effectively with THL,” Mr Keogh said.
|
|