|
Post by dieseltojo on Sept 30, 2022 13:07:55 GMT 10
ARM Architecture in court over alleged cartel conduct for university project 30 September 2022
The ACCC has today launched civil proceedings in the Federal Court against Ashton Raggatt McDougall Pty Ltd (ARM Architecture) and its former managing director, Anthony (Tony) John Allen, alleging they engaged in cartel conduct by attempting to rig bids for the tender for a building project at Darwin’s Charles Darwin University.
In 2018, Charles Darwin University announced plans for a new $250 million Education and Community Precinct in the heart of the Darwin CBD. The project is primarily funded by the Commonwealth Government and the university.
ARM Architecture was awarded the contract for principal design and consultant services under the first phase of the project after a tender in May 2019.
In September 2020, the tender for the second phase of the Charles Darwin University project was issued. It is alleged that following the issue of the tender, Mr Allen sent emails to eight other architectural firms requesting them not to submit a bid for the second phase of the Charles Darwin University project.
The ACCC alleges that in doing so ARM Architecture, through the conduct of Mr Allen, attempted to rig or induce other competitors to agree to rig the tender for principal design consultant services. The ACCC also alleges that Mr Allen attempted to induce other competitors to agree to rig this tender.
Once Charles Darwin University became aware of the alleged conduct, ARM Architecture was excluded from consideration for the second phase of the building project, which was valued at about $2.6 million plus GST.
“Bid rigging for tenders, whether the tenders take place in the public or private sector, is against the law. This type of cartel conduct increases the costs of tenders for businesses or taxpayers, and has a chilling effect on competition,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“The ACCC will take appropriate enforcement action against this type of conduct, including potential civil or criminal cartel proceedings.”
“Professional services firms, including architects, should note that Australia’s cartel laws apply to their businesses as they do in other sectors. Firms competing in these markets must compete fairly and ensure they do not engage in anti-competitive behaviour, including cartel conduct.”
“Public sector procurement is a multi-billion-dollar sector. It makes a vital contribution to the Australian economy and the welfare of Australians, who have the right to expect competitive bidding for these projects, resulting in value for money,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
In November 2021, the ACCC issued a warning to public sector agencies to be alert to the potential of bid rigging for public sector tenders and report any collusive activity to the ACCC.
This year the ACCC has launched an outreach program aimed at engaging with public sector procurement officials regarding the risk and indicators of cartel conduct in procurement processes. The program forms part of the ACCC’s focus on strengthening a number of measures to drive proactive cartel detection. The ACCC has also developed a cartel screening tool for bid rigging conduct, which will better enable the ACCC to use data analysis techniques to identify potential investigation targets.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Oct 4, 2022 15:24:17 GMT 10
ACCC internet sweeps target 'greenwashing', fake online reviews 4 October 2022
The ACCC has today launched two internet sweeps to identify misleading environmental and sustainability marketing claims and fake or misleading online business reviews.
The sweeps are being conducted over the coming weeks as part of the ACCC’s compliance and enforcement priorities for 2022-23, with the broad aim of identifying deceptive advertising and marketing practices by businesses or industries.
At least 200 company websites will be reviewed in the sweep for misleading environmental claims across a range of targeted sectors including energy, vehicles, household products and appliances, food and drink packaging, cosmetics, clothing and footwear.
“As consumers become increasingly interested in purchasing sustainable products, there are growing concerns that some businesses are falsely promoting their environmental or green credentials. Misleading claims about products or services undermine consumer trust and confidence in the market,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“This sweep forms a core part of our work in actively monitoring for ‘greenwashing’ in the market and will help inform what steps businesses can take to improve the integrity of their environmental claims.”
“In looking at claims we are concerned about what the ordinary consumer will understand the claim to mean. The ACCC won’t hesitate to take enforcement action where we see that consumers are being misled or deceived by green claims,” Ms Rickard said.
At the same time, the ACCC will conduct a separate internet sweep targeting fake or misleading online reviews and testimonials. This will be the first of a series of smaller-scale sweeps focusing on deceptive practices in the digital marketplace. The sweep will target misleading reviews posted to business’ websites, Facebook pages and third-party review platforms. Misleading advertising by influencers on social media will be considered in a second sweep, which will focus on identifying posts that fail to clearly disclose advertising or sponsorship.
“Unfortunately, consumers are facing an ever-increasing range of manipulative marketing techniques designed to exploit or pressure them, due in part to the huge number of online information sources available. Consumers often rely on reviews and testimonials when making purchases, but misleading reviews can be harmful,” Ms Rickard said.
“Businesses can also be significantly impacted, particularly by negative reviews at the hands of competitors or third-party professional reviewers acting on behalf of a business. Review manipulation of any kind can impact a business’ star or numeric rating, leading to an overall misleading impression of the business.”
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Oct 24, 2022 15:17:34 GMT 10
Fitbit in court over statements to consumers on faulty devices 24 October 2022 The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against US-based Fitbit LLC for allegedly making false or misleading representations to consumers about their consumer guarantee rights under the Australian Consumer Law after their Fitbit wearable devices malfunctioned. It is alleged that between around May 2020 and February 2022, Fitbit made false or misleading representations to consumers claiming they would not be entitled to a refund unless they returned a faulty product within 45 days of purchase or shipment. The ACCC also alleges that Fitbit conveyed to consumers who had been supplied with a faulty device as a replacement for an original faulty device, that they were not entitled to a second replacement device if Fitbit’s two-year ‘limited warranty period’ for the original device had expired. “Fitbit has again come to the ACCC’s attention for allegedly misleading consumers about their consumer guarantee rights. We are taking this case against Fitbit because we consider the alleged conduct is serious and that manufacturers should have processes in place that ensure compliance with the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. “Under the Australian Consumer Law, products must be of acceptable quality, and retailers must provide a remedy for faulty goods which include a repair, replacement or refund, depending on the circumstances.” “All consumers have these automatic consumer guarantee rights that cannot be excluded, restricted or modified. The consumer guarantee rights exist in addition to any warranties offered by manufacturers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. The ACCC’s case includes 58 examples of consumers who were allegedly misled by statements made by Fitbit’s customer service representatives when they complained about faulty devices. In one case, a consumer complained to Fitbit about a faulty device which was a replacement for another device he had bought more than two years earlier. Fitbit agreed the replacement device was defective but allegedly informed the consumer he was not eligible for a further replacement because the ‘two-year warranty period’ of the original device had expired. In another case, a consumer experiencing technical issues with his Fitbit device requested a refund after being told that there was no exact date when the issues could be fixed. The consumer was advised he did not qualify for a refund. The customer service representative allegedly informed the consumer:
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Nov 2, 2022 16:42:38 GMT 10
Caravanners urged to seek remedy for dangerous recalled Swift cookers 2 November 2022
Consumers who have a Swift 500 series cooker in their caravan or motorhome are advised there is now a remedy for recalled models and should immediately arrange a free inspection of their cooker and possible repair.
Inspection and repairs will be carried out free of charge by the manufacturer, under a remedy Swift has negotiated with the Gas Technical Regulators Committee (GTRC). The GTRC comprises of representatives from Australian state, territory, and New Zealand gas regulators.
The ACCC is concerned about the risk of explosions and burns associated with 16 recalled models of the Swift 500 series cooker. About 11,000 cookers are affected, which were manufactured between 1 January 2019 and 31 May 2020 (inclusive).
“Unfortunately, three people have already suffered serious injuries and burns while using a defective Swift cooker. In one case a person suffered first degree burns to their stomach and legs. We don’t want to see any more injuries occur,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“Consumers should check if their cooker has been recalled by visiting our Product Safety website. Affected consumers not already registered for the recall should contact Swift Appliance Group(link is external) as a matter of urgency, so Swift can arrange an inspection and potential repair.”
“In the meantime, consumers are advised not to use the front left burner of their cooker until they have been inspected and necessary repairs carried out. Remove the knob and store it out of reach” Ms Rickard said.
Most of the recalled cookers were supplied new with the vehicle by retailers nationally and a small number were purchased separately by consumers and installed later.
The hazard
Part of the gas supply pipe to cookers used in motorhomes and caravans may break or erode. Gas leaks and an ignition source can cause explosions or fires.
There are three factors that can cause the gas supply tube to fracture and leak gas:
Overtightening the nuts when connecting the gas supply tubes to the burner.
The aluminium tubes rubbing on the reflector plate that sits behind the unit.
Vibration of the unit that is caused during transit.
The remedy
The remedy process involves inspecting the tube that supplies gas to the front left burner to check that it is fitted correctly and shows no signs of wear. Damaged or ill-fitting burner tubes will be replaced.
Swift 500 series cooker recall - next steps:
Manufacture daters Actions 1 January 2019 - 31 May 2020
Contact Swift Appliance Group to have the cooker inspected and repaired under the recall.
DO NOT USE the front hotplate left burner until the cooker is inspected and repaired. Remove the knob and store it out of reach.
Manufactured prior to 1 January 2019
Manufactured from 1 June 2020 onwards These cookers are not subject to the recall and consumers can continue to use as per the instructions for use provided with the appliance.
These cookers are not subject to the recall and consumers can continue to use as per the instructions for use provided with the appliance.
Background
The Swift 500 series cookers are manufactured by Casale Trim Co Pty Ltd, trading as Swift Appliance Group.
The model and the date of manufacture can be found inside the cooker lid. These details can be checked against the full list of recalled models on the ACCC’s product safety website, where consumers can also find information on what to do next.
Consumers can also register their details with Swift Group on its website(link is external) to receive updates.
Product safety regulation is a shared responsibility between the ACCC and a range of regulators in the states and territories. Western Australia Building and Energy (Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety) is the responsible regulator for gas safety in Western Australia. It works as a member of the Gas Technical Regulators Committee to ensure that all gas products are safe and compliant. Gas regulators do not have voluntary recall powers, or consumer protection powers. Unsafe gas consumer products are captured under the Australian Consumer Law’s voluntary recall and consumer protection provisions. Release number: 154/22
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Nov 4, 2022 16:44:24 GMT 10
Dell Australia in court for allegedly misleading consumers about the cost of add-on monitors 4 November 2022
The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Dell Australia Pty Limited (Dell Australia) for allegedly making false or misleading representations regarding the price of monitors that consumers could add on to purchases of Dell computers.
It is alleged that from at least August 2019 to 16 December 2021, Dell Australia made false or misleading representations on its website about the prices of monitors and the potential savings when a monitor was purchased with a computer.
When a consumer selected a Dell desktop, laptop, or notebook for purchase on the Dell website, the consumer was offered the option of adding a monitor during the check-out process. Often, the monitor was shown with a higher price in strikethrough, representing a significant saving.
The ACCC alleges the monitors were not sold for the ‘strikethrough’ price for most of the relevant time and, in some cases, the add-on price shown was more expensive than if the monitor was bought on a stand-alone basis.
“We allege that Dell Australia made false, misleading or deceptive statements on its website to entice consumers to add on monitors to the purchase of a computer by displaying false or misleading discounts,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
“Cases involving allegations of misleading ‘was/now’ pricing by large retailers of consumer goods are a priority for the ACCC. Businesses should be well aware of their legal requirements and should have effective compliance programs in place to prevent this type of consumer harm.”
“These proceedings are also significant because the alleged misleading conduct related to the online marketing of computers and monitors at a time when many families were in Covid lockdown. We know that many consumers turned to online purchases to buy equipment for working and schooling from home,” Ms Carver said.
“While the total number of misled consumers is unknown, we believe many thousands of consumers were sold an add-on monitor which was advertised with a representation that an inflated discount applied.”
Among the statements made about the ‘discounted’ price of add-on monitors on Dell’s website were “Total Savings”, “Includes x% off”, “Discounted Price”, and “Get the best price for popular accessories when purchased with this product”.
“We have commenced these proceedings because we are concerned that Dell’s presentation of allegedly inflated discounts meant some consumers may have added monitors to their purchase which they may not have otherwise bought, or which they could have bought more cheaply from another section of Dell’s website,” Ms Carver said.
The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, consumer redress, costs and other orders.
Background
Dell Technologies Inc is a US-based technology company that operates globally primarily through its website, and develops, sells, repairs, and supports computers and related products.
Dell Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell Technologies, with headquarters in New South Wales.
Concise Statement
The attached document below contains the ACCC’s initiating court documents in relation to this matter. We will not be uploading further documents in the event these initial documents are subsequently amended.
ACCC v Dell Australia_Concise Statement ( PDF 1.22 MB )
Example of statements on Dell’s website when consumers were offered an add-on monitor to desktop purchases
Example of statements on Dell’s website when consumers were offered an add-on monitor to desktop purchases
Release number: 156/22 ACCC Infocentre:
Use this form to make a general enquiry. Media enquiries:
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Nov 8, 2022 10:41:28 GMT 10
Scams Awareness Week 2022 empowers Australians to spot a scam 7 November 2022 Australians are being urged to learn how to spot a scam this national Scams Awareness Week (7-11 November) after combined losses of over $2 billion reported last year to Scamwatch, the government and the financial sector. This year combined losses might reach $4 billion as losses reported to Scamwatch are already significantly higher than 2021. The ACCC’s Scamwatch received more than 166,000 reports between January and September this year, showing a 90 per cent increase in losses to $424.8 million over the same period last year. These numbers vastly understate real losses as only about 13 per cent of victims report to Scamwatch. This year’s Scams Awareness Week, hosted by the ACCC and the Scams Awareness Network, aims to empower people to be alert to the risk of being scammed and consciously look for red flags. Over 350 private sector, not for profit and government organisations are partnering with Scamwatch for the week. “With millions of Australians more vulnerable to scams following the recent spate of large-scale data breaches, there has never been a more important time to know the tell-tale signs of a scammer,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said. “We know scammers are relentlessly targeting Australians. Research commissioned by the ACCC shows that 96 per cent of the population was exposed to a scam in the five years to 2021. Half of the survey’s respondents were contacted weekly or daily by scammers, a figure expected to rise given current cyber security concerns.” As part of the national scam prevention campaign, the ACCC is rolling out a series of short educational videos, featuring simple and practical tips to help people identify and protect themselves from scams. These are being shared on social media and available to view on YouTube and the Scams Awareness Week web page. “Scammers evolve quickly, and their tactics are becoming increasingly sophisticated and unscrupulous. There have been hundreds of reports to Scamwatch in the weeks after the recent high profile data breaches and that is expected to continue,” Ms Rickard said. “Cyber criminals have capitalised on the data breach by impersonating government departments and businesses to carry out identity theft and remote access scams.” “While there is a great deal of work underway to disrupt scammers, our best defence against these types of scams is education. We want Australians to know what to look for, so they don’t get caught out,” Ms Rickard said. This Scams Awareness Week campaign encourages people to learn about and watch out for common scam clues. It will also raise awareness about where scam victims can go for help. “In addition to costing consumers, businesses and the economy billions a year, scams are emotionally devastating for victims and their families. It’s important that people reach out for help if they need it. There are a number of crisis support services available.” If you think you have been scammed, contact your bank or financial institution immediately. If you have given personal information to a scammer contact IDCARE(link is external). Report scams to Scamwatch, follow us on Twitter(link is external) or subscribe to radar alerts. Top tips for avoiding scams Stop Take your time before giving money or personal information to anyone. Scammers will offer to help you or ask you to verify who you are. They will pretend to be from organisations you know and trust like a business you deal with, police, government or fraud service. Think Ask yourself could the message or call be fake? Never click a link in a message and ask a trusted friend or family member what they would do. Only contact businesses or government using contact information from their official website or through their secure apps. If you’re not sure say no, hang up or delete. Protect Act quickly if something feels wrong. Contact your bank immediately if you lose money or personal information or if you notice some unusual activity on you cards or accounts. Seek help from organisations like IDCARE and report online crime to ReportCyber. Help others by reporting scams to Scamwatch. How to protect yourself today: Make your accounts as safe as your home. Set up extra steps on your accounts to stop people getting in. Add more steps to show who you are when you log into your online services and apps. This is called Multi Factor Authentication. This could be a code sent to your phone, a token or secret question. Your face or fingerprint or voice can also be the key to let you into your accounts. Ask your banks and service providers how to add more checks so no one can pretend to be you. And don’t forget to tell them if you have been in a data breach. Notes to editors: Statistics – 1 January to 30 September 2022 Scamwatch has received over 166,00 reports with more than $425.8 million in total losses. The highest loss categories were investment scams ($292.9 million), dating and romance scams ($29 million) and remote access scams ($18.7 million). The top three most reported scams were phishing (50,015 reports), false-billing (16,263 reports) and online shopping scams (13,068 reports). The most common contact modes were phone (51,234 reports), SMS (50,947 reports) and email (33,287 reports). People aged 65 and over made the most reports (35,343) and experienced the highest losses ($87.4 million). Approximately 12% of people who reported to Scamwatch experienced a financial loss, and 27% reported loss of personal information. Small businesses[1] reported $6.6 million in losses across 1,440 reports. False billing and phishing were most commonly reported by small businesses. Background Scams Awareness Week is a national campaign by the ACCC and 40-member Scams Awareness Network, a group of Australian and New Zealand government agencies with responsibility for consumer protection and policing in scams, cyber safety and fraud. The campaign is supported by over 350 public and private sector partners including leading banks and financial institutions, technology companies, industry associations, consumer groups and not-profits. The ACCC received seed funding in the budget to prepare for the establishment of a national anti-scams centre to support the community in the fight against scammers. If you have experienced cybercrime and lost money online, you can report to police via ReportCyber. Australians, regardless of whether they have lost money, are encouraged to report scams and learn more about how to get help on the Scamwatch website scamwatch.gov.au. For crisis support to help with emotional distress about scams contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or access support via the online chat between 7pm and midnight is external). Beyond Blue also provides support for anxiety and depression 1300 22 4636 or chat online is external). The $2 billion figure is in reference to our Targeting Scams Report (2021) which includes combined reports from ReportCyber, 12 financial organisations and other government agencies. Release number: 157/22 ACCC Infocentre:
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Nov 11, 2022 22:19:14 GMT 10
Telcos to pay a total of $33.5 million for misleading statements about NBN maximum speeds 11 November 2022 Australia’s three largest internet service providers, Telstra Corporation Ltd (Telstra), Optus Internet Pty Limited (Optus), and TPG Internet Pty Ltd (TPG), have been ordered by the Federal Court to pay penalties totalling $33.5 million after they each admitted making false or misleading representations to consumers when promoting certain NBN internet plans, in proceedings brought by the ACCC. Telstra was ordered to pay $15 million, Optus was ordered to pay $13.5 million, and TPG ordered to pay $5 million in penalties for breaching the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by making false or misleading statements in relation to their 50Mbps or 100Mbps fibre to the node (FTTN) plans. By making statements on their websites, in emails to consumers or in telesales, Telstra, Optus and TPG each promised to tell consumers within a reasonable timeframe if the speeds they were paying for could not be reached on their NBN connections. They each also said they would offer these consumers options, including to move to a cheaper plan with a refund, if they could not achieve the maximum speed on their plans.
Telstra, Optus, and TPG each admitted that their statements were false or misleading, in breach of the ACL, because they did not have adequate systems, processes and policies in place to ensure they would do what they said they would. The false or misleading statements representations made by the three providers affected nearly 120,000 consumers in total and were made for at least 12 months in 2019 and/or 2020. “Fast and reliable internet is a necessity for Australian households, and consumers need accurate information when choosing the best internet plan to meet their needs,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said. “These significant penalties reflect the seriousness of the breaches of consumer laws by these large and sophisticated businesses that should be better informed about their obligations towards their customers, particularly given the promises they made to their customers and in undertakings previously provided to the ACCC regarding speed claims for their NBN plans in 2017.” Telstra, Optus and TPG also each admitted that by failing to notify consumers whose maximum attainable speeds were lower than the speed of their purchased plan, they had falsely represented to those consumers that their NBN connections were capable of attaining the higher speeds. “Some customers may have paid for a 50 or 100 Mbps plan believing their NBN connection could support the higher download speeds, even though they would have been better off paying for a lower speed plan,” Ms Carver said. “It is illegal for businesses to make false or misleading representations to consumers about the performance characteristics, nature, standard or quality of products and services.” Telstra, Optus, and TPG have each implemented remediation programs and have already contacted impacted customers to provide refunds. The Court has ordered that Optus re-contact affected customers who have not already responded to previous contact or been credited, to offer compensation within 120 days. These Optus customers can expect to receive an update on their speed data and there will be a dedicated customer service line for them to contact Optus regarding compensation. TPG was ordered to implement an ACL compliance program, while Optus was ordered to update its existing compliance program. Telstra already has ACL compliance program obligations under a court-enforceable undertaking given to the ACCC after the ACCC’s action in relation to unconscionable conduct towards indigenous customers in 2020. Telstra, Optus, and TPG were ordered to pay part of the ACCC’s costs. TPG, Optus, and Telstra cooperated with the ACCC to make joint submissions on penalty and other orders to the Court. Background In August 2021, the ACCC instituted separate proceedings in the Federal Court against Telstra, Optus, and TPG for making alleged false or misleading representations in their promotions of some 50Mbps and 100Mbps NBN plans, in breach of the ACL. The ACCC has published Broadband speed claims: industry guidance to assist retail service providers with advertising speeds for fixed-line broadband services. Principle six in the guidance states that internet retailers should have systems in place to diagnose and resolve broadband speed issues. In late 2017, Telstra, Optus, and TPG provided court-enforceable undertakings to the ACCC to provide remedies to consumers after they had promoted NBN plans with specific maximum speeds which could not be obtained. The undertakings also required them to check the maximum speeds and inform consumers if this did not meet the speed in their plan. The ACCC has previously taken legal action against Telstra, and Optus (in 2018, early 2019, and late 2019) in relation to other false and misleading statements. With regard to the Optus compensation program, the ACCC is warning Optus customers to be particularly wary of potential scams contact. The Scamwatch website has further information on how to protect yourself from scams.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Nov 29, 2022 14:33:31 GMT 10
Alkaloids of Australia and its former export manager sentenced in criminal price fixing cartel 29 November 2022
The Federal Court has sentenced a family-owned Australian pharmaceutical company and its former export manager for engaging in criminal cartel conduct, following a criminal prosecution by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, that arose from an investigation by the ACCC.
Alkaloids of Australia, which produces scopolamine N-butylbromide (SNBB), the active pharmaceutical ingredient used in common anti-spasmodic medications, was convicted and fined $1,987,500.
Its former export manager, Christopher Kenneth Joyce, was also convicted and was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment to be served as an intensive corrections order, including 400 hours of community service.
Mr Joyce was also disqualified from managing corporations for five years and fined $50,000.
In late-2021, Mr Joyce and Alkaloids of Australia pleaded guilty to three criminal charges, and admitted to a further seven offences, in respect of making, attempting to make, and giving effect to several cartel arrangements with overseas pharmaceutical ingredient suppliers that involved price fixing, bid rigging, output restriction and market allocation.
The Court took into account Mr Joyce and Alkaloids of Australia’s early guilty pleas in sentencing.
“We welcome these outcomes, which should serve as a strong reminder that criminal cartel conduct is a serious offence attracting serious consequences, including significant fines, banning orders, and imprisonment for individuals,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
“The sentence imposed on Mr Joyce is the longest sentence of imprisonment imposed on an individual under the criminal cartel laws so far.”
The charges relate to five years of cartel conduct in the period from July 2009, when criminal cartel laws came into force in Australia.
“This was a particularly concerning and serious case of cartel conduct by Alkaloids of Australia over a sustained period which included price fixing that had worldwide impact,” Ms Carver said.
The Court heard Mr Joyce (on behalf of Alkaloids of Australia) regularly met at industry conventions and communicated via email and phone with competing manufacturers of SNBB around the world and agreed to fix the minimum price for SNBB, to allocate customers between each other and to arrange what price would be quoted to customers to ensure a particular manufacturer won the sale.
In addition, Mr Joyce (on behalf of Alkaloids of Australia) attempted to induce competing SNBB manufacturers to limit the production of SNBB and/or its precursor plant, Duboisia, which is grown in Australia.
“Alkaloids of Australia produces and supplies an active ingredient derived from a plant predominantly grown and processed in the Kingaroy region in Queensland and exported for use in medications globally, so the cartel conduct potentially increased prices for consumers and businesses around the world,” Ms Carver said.
“Investigating serious cartels remains an important priority for us, because of the harm such anti-competitive conduct has on consumers, other businesses, and the economy as a whole.”
Background
Alkaloids of Australia is a pharmaceutical ingredient company that produces and supplies SNBB (scopolamine N-butylbromide, also known as hyoscine butylbromide), which is an active pharmaceutical ingredient in antispasmodic medications taken to relieve stomach pain and bowel cramps. The company is based in Queensland.
SNBB is manufactured from the Duboisia plant, which is native to Australia. Duboisia plants are grown commercially in and around Kingaroy in Queensland for the pharmaceutical industry. SNBB is produced in Australia and the medications are then imported into Australia as a final product.
On 1 December 2020, Alkaloids of Australia and its former export manager, Christopher Joyce were charged with criminal cartel offences under the Competition and Consumer Act, formerly called the Trade Practices Act, following an ACCC investigation.
On 26 October 2021 and 16 November 2021 respectively, Christopher Joyce and Alkaloids of Australia each pleaded guilty to three charges, and admitted guilt in respect of seven further offences, relating to conduct in respect of cartel arrangements between Alkaloids of Australia and other SNBB suppliers.
Note to editors
A cartel exists when businesses agree to act together instead of competing with each other. Conduct can include price fixing, sharing markets, rigging bids and controlling the output or limiting the amount of goods and services. More information on cartel conduct can be found on the ACCC’s website at Cartels(link is external).
The ACCC investigates cartel conduct, manages the immunity process and, in respect of civil cartel contraventions, takes proceedings in the Federal Court.
The CDPP is responsible for prosecuting criminal cartel offences in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. The ACCC refers serious cartel conduct to the CDPP for consideration of prosecution in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the CDPP and the ACCC regarding Serious Cartel Conduct.
For corporations, the maximum fine for each criminal cartel offence before 9 November 2022 is the greater of:
$10 million, three times the total benefits that have been obtained and are reasonably attributable to the commission of the offence, or if the total value of the benefits cannot be determined,10 per cent of the corporation’s annual turnover connected with Australia.
An individual convicted of a criminal cartel offence before 9 November 2022 may be sentenced to up to 10 years’ imprisonment or fined up to $444,000, or both.
The maximum fines and civil penalties for cartel conduct by corporations were substantially increased with effect from 9 November 2022, by legislation passed by Parliament in October.
Anyone who thinks they may be involved in cartel conduct is urged to call the ACCC Cartel Immunity Hotline on (02) 9230 3894. More information about the immunity process is available on the ACCC website at Cartels(link is external).
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 9, 2022 6:18:13 GMT 10
Telstra in court for alleged misleading representations about Belong broadband speed 6 December 2022
The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Telstra for allegedly making false or misleading representations about upload speed to residential broadband customers of its cheaper brand, Belong.
In October and November 2020, Telstra migrated nearly 9000 customers who were on a Belong NBN plan with a maximum download speed of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and a maximum upload speed of 40Mbps, to a service with a maximum upload speed of 20Mbps.
The ACCC alleges that Telstra failed to notify customers of the reduction in the upload speed, and did not lower their charges, even though the cost charged by NBN Co to Telstra was $7 a month less for the new service.
“We allege 8,897 consumers who signed up to a Belong NBN plan between May 2017 and October 2020 were affected by this change and deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision about their internet service,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
In March and April 2021 Telstra acknowledged this failure in respect of approximately 2,500 customers and provided them with a one-off $90 credit.
“We allege that more than 6,300 Belong customers have still not been informed by Telstra that their plan has changed to a lower maximum upload speed, and that Telstra continues to represent to them that the Belong broadband service supplied to them has not been altered,” Ms Carver said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 9, 2022 6:19:48 GMT 10
Uber to pay $21m for misleading representations about Uber Taxi fares and cancellation fees 7 December 2022 The Federal Court has ordered ridesharing platform Uber to pay a penalty of $21 million after Uber admitted it had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to consumers in its app and on its website, in proceedings brought by the ACCC. Uber admitted it breached the Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading conduct and making false or misleading representations in relation to cancellation messages and the price of Uber Taxi rides. In particular, Uber admitted the cancellation message it displayed between at least December 2017 and September 2021 was misleading because it stated users may be charged a cancellation fee if they cancelled their trip, even if those users were seeking to cancel during Uber’s ‘free cancellation period’. The cancellation message which stated ‘You may be charged a small fee since your driver is already on their way’ was amended by Uber in September 2021 in response to the ACCC’s ongoing concerns. Uber agreed that more than two million consumers saw the misleading cancellation message. Uber also admitted the price range estimate for an Uber Taxi ride (a service available only in Sydney) displayed to consumers on Uber’s app and website from July 2018 until the service was discontinued in August 2020, was false and misleading. The price range estimate displayed was higher than the actual Uber Taxi fare most of the time. Uber agreed more than a thousand consumers used the Uber Taxi option each week where they were shown inaccurate price estimates. The ACCC filed proceedings on 26 April 2022, and at that time both parties jointly submitted to the court that a penalty of $26 million was appropriate. “This $21 million penalty clearly signals to businesses that misleading consumers about the cost of a product or service is a serious matter which can attract substantial penalties,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. “We note Justice O’Bryan’s statement that the ordered penalty should not be understood as any reduction in the Court’s resolve to impose penalties appropriate to achieve the statutory objective of deterring contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law.” Uber agreed some Uber group employees were aware of issues with its Uber Taxi fare estimates and cancellation messaging. Uber has acknowledged it did not monitor the functionality of the algorithm to ensure the accuracy of the Uber Taxi fare estimates it produced in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 9, 2022 6:22:18 GMT 10
Oil and gas services company Qteq in court for alleged cartel conduct 8 December 2022
The ACCC has today filed civil cartel proceedings in the Federal Court against mining equipment and technology services company Qteq Pty Ltd (Qteq) and its executive chairman, Simon Ashton.
It is alleged that on seven instances between 2017 and 2019, Qteq contacted competing businesses working in the supply of services to the oil and gas service industry, in attempts to induce them to enter into cartel arrangements with them.
Specifically, Qteq is alleged to have attempted to enter, or attempted to induce four other suppliers to enter into, contracts, arrangements or understandings which contained cartel provisions, including provisions to not supply particular services to large oil and gas companies, to share markets and to rig a tender.
The ACCC also alleges that Mr Ashton was involved in attempting to induce competitors to enter into these cartel arrangements on six occasions.
“When businesses seek to allocate particular clients between them or agree not to bid on certain contracts, they distort competition, which can ultimately drive up prices to the detriment of other businesses and the wider economy,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
“Pursuing cartel conduct remains one of our enduring priorities. We carefully consider all allegations of attempted or actual cartel conduct received, including tip-offs from industry insiders and customers, as well as anonymous reports made via our cartel reporting portal.”
“This case is a timely reminder for businesses, no matter what size, to ensure that their directors, senior managers and employees are aware of their obligations under the Competition and Consumer Act not to engage in cartel and other anti-competitive conduct, or they may face serious consequences,” Ms Carver said.
Background
Qteq is a Queensland-based company which provides mining equipment and technology services to support the upstream oil and gas industry.
Its primary business is the sale, installation, and servicing of downhole pressure gauges to coal seam gas producers, which is known as ‘gauge works’. At the relevant time, Qteq was the market leader in providing gauge work services.
Gauge works are a form of monitoring and measurement when a downhole gauge system is inserted into a well to monitor the water level so that the rate at which water is pumped out of the coal seam can be controlled.
Notes for editors
A cartel exists when businesses agree to act together instead of competing with each other. Conduct can include price fixing, sharing markets, rigging bids and controlling the output or limiting the amount of goods and services. More information about cartel conduct can be found on the ACCC’s website at Cartels.
The ACCC investigates cartel conduct and can take civil cartel proceedings in the Federal Court or refer serious cartel conduct to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
For corporations, the maximum penalty for each cartel offence before 9 November 2022 is the greater of:
$10 million, three times the total benefits that have been obtained and are reasonably attributable to the commission of the offence, or if the total value of the benefits cannot be determined,10 per cent of the corporation’s annual turnover connected with Australia.
An individual found to have been involved in civil cartel conduct before 9 November 2022 is subject to a maximum penalty of $500,000 for each act or omission.
The maximum civil penalties for cartel conduct by corporations were substantially increased with effect from 9 November 2022, by legislation passed by Parliament in October.
Anyone who thinks they may be involved in cartel conduct is urged to call the ACCC Cartel Immunity Hotline on (02) 9230 3894. More information about the immunity process is available on the ACCC website at Cartels.
You can also report cartel conduct by using the anonymous cartel portal(link is external).
Use this form to make a general enquiry.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 9, 2022 11:17:29 GMT 10
BlueScope and its former general manager Jason Ellis attempted to induce steel price fixing agreements 9 December 2022
In civil cartel proceedings brought by the ACCC, the Federal Court has found that BlueScope Steel Limited and its former general manager of sales and marketing, Mr Jason Ellis, engaged in cartel conduct in relation to the supply of flat steel products in Australia.
The Court found that between September 2013 and June 2014, BlueScope and Mr Ellis attempted to induce eight steel distributors in Australia, and overseas manufacturer, Yieh Phui, to enter agreements to fix and/or raise the level of pricing for flat steel products supplied in Australia.
“The Court has found that BlueScope, which is one of Australia’s largest companies, and its former senior executive, Jason Ellis, attempted to induce competitors to enter into price fixing arrangements,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.
“If successful, these attempts would have resulted in agreements between competitors which reduced price competition in the Australian flat steel market and increased prices for flat steel products which are widely used in Australia.”
“Cartels not only disadvantage other businesses which are competing lawfully, but can also lead to consumers paying higher prices.”
“This is an important decision which has the potential to strengthen the ACCC’s position in future cases of attempted cartel conduct,” Ms Carver said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 9, 2022 11:19:09 GMT 10
Consumers pay more for NBN plans while service levels remain largely unchanged 9 December 2022
The price of NBN home broadband services increased for consumers in 2021-22 while NBN Co’s own service standard measurements remained largely unchanged over the same period, the ACCC’s latest Communications Market Report shows.
The report looks at key developments in a wide range of telecommunications markets, and the state of competition in the sector.
It shows that consumers on entry-level NBN plans paid 3.6 per cent more in 2021-22 than they did the year before, and those on middle-of-the-range plans paid an extra 4.7 per cent. Consumers on higher-end and very high-speed plans experienced the largest price increase at 9 per cent.
“More than eight million households and small businesses rely on the NBN for their internet, so the trade-off between the price and service quality of NBN plans affects most Australians,” ACCC Commissioner Anna Brakey said.
The only key service metric of NBN Co’s that improved last financial year was that it fixed its appointment scheduling system.
Consumer demand for NBN broadband plans continued to consolidate at the 50 Mbps speed tier, with these services accounting for 62 per cent of all NBN retail services. The proportion of consumers on 100 Mbps services increased, but there were reductions in services on both the entry level (12 Mbps) and very high (greater than 100 Mbps) speed tiers.
Smaller internet retailers continued to gain market share from the large, established providers and expanded their coverage at NBN points of interconnect. Several of the smaller retailers achieved a national NBN presence for the first time in 2021-22.
“It’s encouraging that the growing market share of the smaller retailers and their expanding footprint will result in more choice for Australian consumers, regardless of where they live,” Ms Brakey said.
5G mobile coverage increased
All three national mobile network operators continued to make large investments in their 5G rollout in 2021-22, which reached regional areas for the first time.
5G services continue to be a focal point of competition between Telstra, Optus and TPG, while the mobile virtual network operators that use the mobile networks of the big three were able to offer 5G mobile services for the first time.
“The entry of mobile virtual network operators into the 5G retail market will broaden the range of options for consumers,” Ms Brakey said.
The 5G home broadband market also matured in 2021-22 as Telstra, Optus and TPG offered their 5G home broadband services in more areas. 5G broadband services could become an alternative to NBN home broadband plans for some customers, particularly in areas with high percentages of fibre to the node and fibre to the curb connections.
The advertised price of mobile phone services remained largely unchanged in 2021-22, but Telstra and Optus increased their prices in the second half of this year.
Typical data allowances again increased in 2021-22 compared to the year before. ACCC analysis suggests that much of this extra data in plans is left unused as the median data allowance is 35 GB per month, but consumers only download on average 10 GB per month.
“Consumers can potentially save money by shopping around for cheaper plans with just the inclusions that they need,” Ms Brakey said.
Internet upload speeds still short of advertised claims
The ACCC report also summarises the findings of the ACCC’s Measuring Broadband Australia program (MBA) in 2021-22. The MBA results show a slight improvement in download speed performance for NBN fixed-line services such as fibre to the premises and fibre to the node, but download speeds during the busy evening hours and upload speeds during all hours remain below the retailers’ maximum plan speeds.
“Upload speeds are increasingly important for households and businesses, and we expect NBN Co and retailers to co-operate to ensure that this key service feature meets consumer expectations. The pandemic has given rise to more flexible working-from-home arrangements, and video communications require good upload speeds,” Ms Brakey said.
Background
The ACCC is required to report each financial year on competition in the Australian telecommunications sector and price changes for telecommunications services in Australia. As set out in sections 151CL and 151CM of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC fulfils this requirement through the Communication Market Report. The Communications Market Report must be published on the ACCC’s website by 31 December.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 13, 2022 14:53:05 GMT 10
Fowler Homes admits using unfair contract terms preventing negative reviews 13 December 2022
Residential home building company Fowler Homes Pty Ltd has admitted that its standard home building contract contained unfair contract terms and has undertaken not to enforce the terms of concern to the ACCC.
The home building contract contained a non-disparagement clause which prohibited clients of Fowler Homes from publishing or sharing negative reviews or any other feedback, including online or on social media, about Fowler Homes’ services or its contract without prior permission from Fowler Homes. The clause also required clients to indemnify Fowler Homes against any losses suffered from enforcing those terms.
In response to ACCC’s concerns, Fowler Homes has provided a court-enforceable undertaking to the ACCC in which it acknowledges that the non-disparagement clause could have prevented clients from speaking out about issues, and has undertaken not to include the non-disparagement clause in future contracts.
Fowler Homes has also undertaken to send a letter to affected clients, and establish a complaints handling system and a compliance program.
“Businesses should review their standard form contacts to ensure they do not contain unfair terms. From 10 November 2023, businesses may face penalties if they use unfair contract terms in certain standard form contracts, or rely on them in their dealings with clients or customers,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
Since July 2019, Fowler Homes has signed contracts containing non-disparagement clauses with 434 customers.
“We are disappointed Fowler Homes continued to use unfair non-disparagement clauses in its standard home building contract when the ACCC’s actions against other building companies for similar clauses should have been well known and understood within the industry,” Mr Keogh said.
A copy of the undertaking can be found at Fowler Homes Pty Ltd.
Background
Fowler Homes is a residential builder which offers building services across the greater Sydney region, NSW.
Notes for editors
In December 2017, building company 101 residential Pty Ltd provided a court-enforceable undertaking and amended its standard home building contract which contained non-disparagement clauses.
In June 2018, the ACCC accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from home builder Wisdom Property Group Pty Ltd to remove unfair contract terms from its standard home building agreements. The agreement included non-disparagement clauses.
On 27 October 2022, legislation establishing a civil penalty regime for unfair contract terms in certain standard form contracts and expanding the class of contracts covered passed Parliament, and will come into effect on 10 November 2023.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Dec 17, 2022 9:04:26 GMT 10
Dominique Grubisa and DG Institute in court for alleged misleading representations 16 December 2022
The ACCC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against Master Wealth Control Pty Limited, trading as DG Institute, for allegedly making false or misleading representations about the Real Estate Rescue program and the Master Wealth Control program DG Institute offered to consumers, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
The ACCC alleges that between April 2017 and November 2022, DG Institute made false or misleading representations in the promotion and sale of the two paid programs to prospective students via free in-person seminars, online webinars and videos, as well as on the DG Institute website
The ACCC further alleges DG Institute also made false or misleading representations in the delivery of the Master Wealth Control program.
The ACCC alleges that Dominique Grubisa, the director and CEO of DG Institute, was involved in this conduct through her role in drafting, authorising and making the statements made on video and in promotional and program materials.
Between July 2018 and November 2022, DG Institute made representations to prospective students of the Real Estate Rescue program that they would be taught its so-called ‘equity deal’ strategy based on the premise that if a bank repossesses and sells a home, the homeowner loses all their equity because “banks don’t give change”.
The strategy involved identifying homeowners who may be in financial distress, including by monitoring court lists to identify possession, divorce or probate proceedings, and then approaching homeowners to attempt to reach agreement to purchase the homeowner’s property, or sell it on the homeowner’s behalf.
Prospective students were told to convey to those homeowners that they could help the homeowner achieve a better outcome than they would if the bank repossessed their property, because in that circumstance the entire proceeds of sale, including the homeowner’s remaining equity in the property, would be retained by the bank.
The ACCC alleges this was misleading as, in the event of repossession, a bank is only entitled to the amount owed to it plus reasonable associated costs, and so a homeowner may retain some of the value of their equity when their house is sold, depending on their individual circumstances.
“We allege that DG Institute and Ms Grubisa misrepresented to prospective students that the strategy taught in the Real Estate Rescue program would allow them to assist distressed homeowners to sell their property and retain some of the equity, when otherwise the homeowner would lose their equity if the bank repossessed, when this was not the case,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“Students paid significant sums of money for the Real Estate Rescue program based on what we allege was misleading information given by DG Institute and Ms Grubisa in the promotion and sale of this course,” Ms Rickard said.
Further, between April 2017 and November 2022, in the promotion, sale, and delivery of the Master Wealth Control program, DG Institute represented that by setting up a type of trust called a ‘Vestey Trust’, using a suite of documentation provided by DG Institute said to be legally binding, any assets in the trust would be completely protected from creditors. DG Institute said the Vestey Trust was “bulletproof”, “impenetrable” and would result in students being "unable to be effectively pinned down by creditors".
The ACCC alleges that this was misleading as the Vestey Trust did not provide that complete protection.
Further, DG Institute represented that the Vestey Trust structure had been tested and upheld as effective by the Full Federal Court of Australia. The ACCC alleges that this is misleading as the referenced court judgment, Sharrment, did not concern a Vestey Trust and does not provide authoritative precedent or support for the legitimacy or effectiveness of the Vestey Trust structure in protecting assets from creditors.
“Students paid significant sums of money for the Master Wealth Control program based on information we allege is misleading,” Ms Rickard said.
“We allege that students of DG Institute could have faced significant financial harm by relying on the advice of, and using materials provided by, DG Institute and Ms Grubisa, to set up what was represented to be a Vestey Trust which would completely protect their assets, when that was not the case” Ms Rickard said.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, penalties, non-punitive orders (such as corrective publications and a compliance program) and non-party consumer redress orders against DG Institute.
The ACCC is also seeking an order against Ms Grubisa that would disqualify her from managing a company for a period to be determined by the Court.
|
|