|
Post by dieseltojo on Jun 25, 2020 11:04:50 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/scams-target-all-sections-of-australian-society-including-cald-and-indigenous-communitiesScams target all sections of Australian society including CALD and Indigenous communities 25 June 2020
Data from the ACCC’s annual Targeting Scams report, released this week, indicates scammers don’t discriminate and are targeting a range of different communities in Australia. In 2019, people who reported speaking English as a second language lost $13.7 million, an increase of 90 per cent on the previous year, despite the number of reports remaining steady. This increase was mainly from investment scams, which accounted for over $5.3 million in losses in this group.
“Investment scams often begin with cold calls promising low risk investments with high returns and can go on for months, resulting in high individual losses,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said. “If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t let anyone pressure you and make sure you take the time to research the investment opportunity and get financial advice before agreeing to anything.”
Dating and romance scams had the next highest losses in this group at $2.7 million, followed by scams using threats to life or arrest at $1.7 million.
“Chinese authority scams continue to target the Mandarin-speaking community by accusing victims of perpetrating a crime, and threatening arrest or deportation if they do not provide money, or information such as their bank account balances and identity details,” Ms Rickard said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jun 25, 2020 11:07:19 GMT 10
Just a not here.... Some companies set up a address in a capital city in Ozz and then have a local sounding address. But your goods are all transacted from china in many cases. That is where scams, substitution or fees might be included. .........................................................................................................................
Consumers urged to look out for unexpected international transaction fees 25 June 2020
Consumers should look out for unexpected international transaction fees when buying online from major brands, the ACCC has warned. Even websites with a .com.au domain name or that appear to be Australian based may process transactions overseas, meaning consumers can get charged an international transaction fee even for a purchase made in Australian dollars.
The ACCC says retailers may be engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct if Australian consumers are given the overall impression that the transaction is processed here, when it is actually processed outside of Australia.
Businesses should clearly inform consumers when they are likely to be charged an international transaction fee, the ACCC says, and has issued guidance to retailers about how price information should be presented to consumers.
Following engagement with the ACCC, Nike Inc has recently changed its Australian online check out page so customers are alerted that they may be charged an international transaction fee. “It is unclear to many consumers whether a retailer processes transactions overseas, so we expect retailers to make this clear to consumers on their websites,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. “Consumers who have been charged an unexpected international transaction fee for a purchase in Australian dollars from a website that appears Australian-based or has an Australian domain name should query the fee with their bank and report it to the ACCC,” Mr Sims said.
“If you are making regular purchases with overseas businesses, it may be worth considering a credit or debit card with no international transaction fees or asking your bank to block international transactions for certain cards.”
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 6, 2020 20:21:31 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/megasave-couriers-and-gary-bourne-allegedly-misled-franchiseesMegasave Couriers and Gary Bourne allegedly misled franchisees 6 July 2020 The ACCC has instituted proceedings against franchisor Megasave Couriers Australia Pty Ltd (Megasave) in the Federal Court, alleging that it misled prospective franchisees with false or misleading promises of guaranteed minimum weekly payments and annual income if they purchased a Megasave courier franchise.
It is also alleged that Megasave’s sole director, Mr Gary Bourne, was knowingly involved in the conduct. The ACCC alleges that: • from at least June 2019 to July 2020, Megasave represented to prospective franchisees that they would receive guaranteed minimum weekly payments (in most cases $2000 per week) for a period of time, usually for the first six months; and
• from at least June 2019 to April 2020, Megasave represented to prospective franchisees that they would be guaranteed a minimum annual income, which in most cases was $91,000. The alleged false or misleading representations were in promotional statements and marketing material on Megasave’s website and in online advertisements, as well as in documents provided to prospective franchisees and communications by Mr Bourne and others.
The ACCC’s case is that Megasave continued to make these representations to prospective franchisees even after it had failed to make minimum weekly payments to existing franchisees, and the payments being made to those franchisees were not sufficient for them to earn the guaranteed annual income.
In addition, from late December 2019, Megasave allegedly imposed a condition on the payment of the minimum weekly payments requiring franchisees to submit weekly sales leads, which had not been disclosed to franchisees before they purchased their franchises.
“We received complaints from more than 30 franchisees, with many of them reporting that they had suffered serious financial harm as a result of Megasave and Mr Bourne’s conduct,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 7, 2020 16:07:58 GMT 10
Re Freedom Furniture www.accc.gov.au/media-release/freedom-furniture-pays-penalties-for-allegedly-misleading-consumers-about-rights-to-refundsFreedom Furniture pays penalties for allegedly misleading consumers about rights to refunds 7 July 2020 Steinhoff Asia Pacific Pty Ltd (Steinhoff), trading as Freedom Furniture, has paid penalties totalling $25,200 after the ACCC issued it with two infringement notices for alleged false or misleading representations to customers about their consumer guarantee rights.
The infringement notices were issued after Steinhoff published the following statement on the Freedom Furniture website in August and September 2019: “Furniture items cannot be returned or exchanged, except at Freedom’s absolute discretion.”
The ACCC had reasonable grounds to believe Freedom Furniture contravened the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by making this alleged false or misleading representation. The ACCC was concerned that the representation was likely to have given the impression that consumers could not return or exchange faulty furniture items unless Freedom Furniture allowed them to do so, when that is not the case under the ACL consumer guarantees.
“Retailers must not misrepresent consumer guarantee rights to their customers,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said. “Under the Australian Consumer Law consumers have the right to ask for their choice of a repair, replacement or refund when they have purchased a product that has a fault which amounts to a major failure.”
Background Steinhoff Asia Pacific Pty Ltd is Australia’s second-largest furniture retailer, with brands including Freedom Furniture, Fantastic Furniture, Bay Leather Republic, Original Mattress Factory, Plush, and Snooze. The conduct of concern relates only to the Freedom Furniture brand. Notes to editors The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 8, 2020 13:55:28 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/quantum-housing-decision-appealed-over-unconscionable-conductQuantum Housing decision appealed over unconscionable conduct 8 July 2020 The ACCC has today filed an appeal to the Full Federal Court against a recent first instance decision of the Court, arguing the trial judge should have found Quantum Housing Group engaged in unconscionable conduct in in its dealings with investors regarding the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
On 9 June 2020, the Federal Court found that Quantum made false or misleading representations. The Court ordered Quantum to pay $700,000 in penalties and also ordered that its sole director, Cheryl Howe, pay a penalty of $50,000 for being knowingly concerned in the conduct, and banned her from managing a corporation for three years.
Quantum and Ms Howe admitted liability and made joint submissions with the ACCC in relation to penalties and other orders. However, the trial judge was not satisfied that the admitted conduct was unconscionable. The judge reached this view because the conduct did not depend on exploiting a special disadvantage or vulnerability on the part of the investors.
“We are appealing this decision in order to seek clarity from the Full Federal Court on whether the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) requires there to be special disadvantage on the part of the target or victim of alleged unconscionable conduct for that conduct to be unconscionable in breach of the ACL,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“The ACCC’s view is that Parliament did not intend that it would be necessary to establish special disadvantage or any taking advantage of a special disadvantage for conduct to be unconscionable and in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.”
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 10, 2020 14:47:37 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/get-gizmo-to-refund-customers-charged-during-cooling-off-periodGet Gizmo to refund customers charged during cooling off period 10 July 2020 Electronics retailer Get Gizmo will offer to refund approximately 4,000 customers who were charged for unsolicited purchases before the 10 day cooling off period ended, under a court-enforceable undertaking given to the ACCC by its sole director, Himanshu Bist. From February to October 2019, Get Gizmo promoted and sold electronic goods by unsolicited telemarketing to around 8,100 consumers in Australia, including many in remote Indigenous communities. The ACCC alleged that in approximately 4,000 cases, Get Gizmo charged customers for their goods during the statutory 10 day cooling off period. “There are laws in place to protect consumers during unsolicited calls or visits and this includes a 10 day cooling off period during which a customer can cancel at no financial cost,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said. “Mr Bist has admitted that Get Gizmo accepted full or partial payment for goods during the cooling off period, and that this was likely to have contravened the Australian Consumer Law.” All customers who were charged for products before the cooling off period had elapsed will be contacted by Get Gizmo by email or letter with information on how they can obtain a refund should they wish to do so. As part of the undertaking, Mr Bist has committed to ensure that Get Gizmo does not engage in any further unsolicited sales for its products. Mr Bist has also undertaken not to be involved in any business that offers, negotiates or enters into an unsolicited consumer agreement for a period of five years. A copy of the undertaking is available at: Himanshu Bist Background: Get Gizmo is a small electronics retailer that specialises in the direct sale of tablets, mobile phones and laptops to Australian consumers. Release number: 143/20
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 13, 2020 16:42:15 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/apra-required-to-improve-transparency-of-music-licensing-and-royaltiesAPRA required to improve transparency of music licensing and royalties 13 July 2020 Greater transparency about licence fees and royalties is a condition of the ACCC reauthorising the Australasian Performing Right Association’s (APRA) musical works licensing arrangements for a further four years.
APRA and its members, including composers, songwriters and publishers, hold performing rights for almost all commercially popular music played or performed in Australia, and earn royalties from those rights. In most cases, members assign these rights on an exclusive basis to APRA, which collects royalties by imposing licence fees on users of that music.
For many businesses that play music, including most retailers, cafes, bars and broadcasters, their only option is to obtain and pay for a licence from APRA. The fees from these licences are distributed by APRA to its members. “Collective management of copyright is generally more efficient than songwriters having to independently negotiate and collect royalties directly from each business that plays their songs,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said. “However, APRA’s exclusivity provisions can mean higher fees for some businesses that want to play music.”
Key issues raised in submissions to the ACCC’s consultations included concerns about the licence fees APRA charges. Respondents were also concerned about APRA’s lack of transparency and accountability, both to its songwriter members and to businesses from which it collects licence fees.
“The ACCC is granting reauthorisation with a number of conditions to limit APRA’s market power and help protect songwriters and small businesses when dealing with APRA,” Mr Keogh said. These conditions require APRA to publish its methodologies for calculating the rates for each category of licence it offers. APRA will also be required to publish an explanation each time it increases licence rates by more than CPI.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 15, 2020 16:59:37 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-proposes-to-allow-supermarkets-to-continue-cooperating-on-grocery-supplyACCC proposes to allow supermarkets to continue cooperating on grocery supply 15 July 2020
Supermarket operators will be able to continue working together until March 2021 to ensure the continued supply of food and groceries during the COVID-19 pandemic, under the ACCC’s draft determination.
“The ACCC recognises the significant challenges businesses and the economy more broadly are facing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said. “We know there has been unprecedented demand for groceries and other household products, and believe there are clear benefits in allowing this conduct to continue while the pandemic remains an issue.”
The authorisation applies to Coles, Woolworths, Metcash and Aldi, along with other grocery retailers whose participation is approved by the ACCC. The draft determination proposes authorisation on broadly the same terms as the interim authorisations granted in March and June, which allow the supermarkets to coordinate with each other when working with manufacturers, suppliers, and transport and logistics providers.
Importantly, the authorisation does not extend to the prices of any retail products. Retailers, suppliers, manufacturers and transport groups can choose to opt in or out of any arrangements. “The recent outbreak in Melbourne has highlighted the benefit of this authorisation, with supermarkets and authorities able to meet and coordinate their responses rapidly, maximising the availability of groceries and other essential goods,” Mr Ridgeway said.
“The authorisation facilitates supermarkets working together to ensure everyone, including vulnerable consumers or those from rural and remote areas, have fair and reliable access to fresh food, groceries and other household goods.”
Authorisation covers only discussions and agreements made at meetings convened by government agencies, including the Department of Home Affairs’ Supermarket Taskforce and its working groups, and the National Indigenous Australians Agency’s COVID-19 working groups. The ACCC attends these meetings when relevant issues are discussed. The ACCC will now seek submissions on the draft determination. Details on how to make a submission, including a statement of reasons, are available on the ACCC’s public register at Coles Group on behalf of itself and participating supermarkets.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 16, 2020 13:56:58 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/medibank-to-pay-5-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresentations-to-members-about-benefitsMedibank to pay $5 million in penalties for misrepresentations to members about benefits 16 July 2020 The Federal Court has ordered that Medibank Private Limited trading as ‘ahm Health Insurance’ (Medibank) pay $5 million in penalties for making false representations to members about the benefits offered by their ahm health insurance policies, in breach of Australian Consumer Law.
Medibank falsely advised 849 members with ahm’s “lite” or “boost” policies who had lodged claims or enquired about their coverage, that they were not covered for joint investigations or joint reconstruction procedures, when these policies in fact entitled them to coverage for these procedures. At least 1,396 enquiries or claims were incorrectly rejected.
Medibank admitted this breach occurred because it failed to include 186 joint investigation and reconstruction services in its claiming system for the ahm “lite” policy between February 2013 and July 2018, and failed to include 26 such services in its system for the “boost” policy between February 2017 and July 2018.
Despite Medibank identifying in June 2017 that some service codes had not been included, Medibank rejected 370 enquiries or claims over another 13 months, until the conduct ceased in July 2018. The services involved included critical services, such as spinal surgery, pelvic surgery, hip surgery and knee reconstructions, as well as procedures on fibulas, elbows, heels, wrists, kneecaps and jaws.
“Medibank’s false statements to consumers were a serious breach of our consumer law. These representations were made for more than five years in many cases, and affected hundreds of customers who were denied the cover they were entitled to under their existing Medibank policies for joint procedures that they required,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. “Some Medibank policy holders incurred extra out of pocket expenses for major medical procedures, some delayed having these joint procedures and managed their pain, while others ‘upgraded’ their Medibank policies at an additional cost when they didn’t have to.”
Medibank self-reported this conduct to the ACCC in August 2018 and has since notified about 130,000 current and former policy holders. It invited them to make a complaint or seek compensation. By 22 June 2020, Medibank had paid more than $775,000 in compensation to 175 affected members, including some who upgraded their policies unnecessarily based on the false information.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 18, 2020 10:32:14 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/kogan-tax-time-promotion-found-to-be-false-or-misleadingKogan tax time promotion found to be false or misleading 17 July 2020 The Federal Court has found online retailer Kogan Australia Pty Ltd (Kogan) breached the Australian Consumer Law by making false and misleading representations about a tax time sales promotion, in proceedings brought by the ACCC. Kogan ran the online promotion from 27 to 30 June 2018, advertising to consumers that they could use the code ‘TAXTIME’ to reduce prices by 10 per cent at checkout. The promotion was advertised on Kogan’s website, in emails it sent to more than 10 million consumers, and in SMS messages to more than 930,000 consumers. Towards the end of the promotion, Kogan’s email advertisements also included statements like ‘48 hours left!’ and ‘Ends midnight tonight!’ to entice consumers to make a purchase during the sale. The Court found that the advertisements conveyed false or misleading representations because Kogan had increased the prices of more than 600 of its products immediately before the promotion. In most cases the prices of these products had been increased by at least 10 per cent. Kogan had also reduced the prices of these products shortly after the promotion ended, many back to their pre-promotion prices. “We brought this case because we were concerned that the advertised price reductions were not genuine savings,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. “Many consumers who took up the offer on one or more of the 600 or so products in many cases actually paid the same as, or more than, what they would have paid immediately before and after the promotion.” “All businesses must ensure that their advertisements do not mislead consumers about the nature of a promotion, and that any promised savings are genuine,” Mr Sims said. A hearing on relief, including penalties, will be held at a later date. The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, corrective notices and costs. Background: Kogan.com (ASX:KGN) is an online retailer with over 1.4 million active customers which sells a wide variety of goods including consumer electronics, furniture and toys. In May 2019, the ACCC launched legal proceedings, alleging Kogan made false or misleading representations about a 10 per cent price reduction promotion. The ACCC has previously taken enforcement action against other related Kogan entities in 2016 and in 2009 for allegedly engaging in pricing conduct which raised similar concerns.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 21, 2020 10:39:46 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/government-impersonation-scams-on-the-riseGovernment impersonation scams on the rise 21 July 2020 Australians are being urged to watch out for government impersonation scams with over $1.26 million lost from more than 7100 reports made to Scamwatch so far this year and in reality, losses are likely to be far greater. There has been an increase in scams reported during tax time such as text messages claiming to be from myGov or from agencies claiming to help victims gain early access to their superannuation. “Scammers are increasingly taking advantage of the financial difficulties and uncertainty generated from the COVID-19 pandemic to trick unsuspecting Australians,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“We are seeing two main types of scams impersonating government departments; fake government threats and phishing scams.” “Both of these scams can be quite convincing and can lead to significant financial losses or even identity theft.”
In a fake government threat scam, victims receive a robocall pretending to be from a government department, such as the ATO or Department of Home Affairs. The scammer will claim something illegal, such as tax fraud or money laundering, has been committed in the victim’s name and they should dial 1 to speak to an operator. The scammer then tries to scare people into handing over money and may threaten that they would be arrested if they refuse.
“Don’t be pressured by a threatening caller and take your time to consider who you might be dealing with,” Ms Rickard said.
“Government departments will never threaten you with immediate arrest or ask for payment by unusual methods such as gift cards, iTunes vouches or bank transfers.”
In a phishing scam, victims will receive an email or text message claiming to be from a government department, such as Services Australia, requesting personal details to confirm their eligibility for a government payment or because the person may have been exposed to COVID-19.
The emails and texts will include a link and request personal details such as a tax file number, superannuation details or copies of identity documents. “Don’t click on any hyperlinks in texts or emails to reach a government website, always type the address into the browser yourself,” Ms Rickard said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 21, 2020 10:41:11 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/chrisco-undertakes-to-address-concerns-about-lay-by-plans-and-promotionsChrisco undertakes to address concerns about lay-by plans and promotions 21 July 2020
Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited (Chrisco) has provided a court-enforceable undertaking to the ACCC in which it acknowledges that a term in its lay-by agreements for Christmas hampers and other items, known as a “HeadStart Plan”, may be an unfair contract term. Chrisco also admitted that it likely made false or misleading representations to consumers in its promotions about the plan.
The HeadStart Plan term allowed Chrisco to continue to take payments from consumers after they had fully paid for their existing lay-by order, unless consumers expressly opted out. Chrisco has undertaken to increase the transparency of the HeadStart Plan term by requiring consumers to opt in to a HeadStart Plan and to confirm their participation from year to year. “Ensuring that consumers must opt-in to the HeadStart lay-by plan makes it much clearer to them that they are signing up to a plan, whereas in the past they had to ‘opt-out’ of the plan by ticking a box when they placed an order with Chrisco,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
Chrisco has also agreed to update its terms and conditions to ensure that the effect and operation of the HeadStart Plan is clearly and prominently explained to consumers, including clarifying refund rights in relation to any orders Chrisco placed on behalf of a customer under a HeadStart Plan.
“We believe that the changes Chrisco has undertaken to make will increase the transparency of its terms and conditions, and will give consumers the ability to choose whether they want to participate in the HeadStart Plan each year,” Ms Court said.
“All businesses must ensure they clearly explain to customers what plans or services they are signing up to, and how they operate.” The ACCC was also concerned about Chrisco’s promotional emails and text messages sent to many thousands of consumers between 28 August 2018 and 24 April 2019, which offered them a credit to be redeemed by clicking on an image.
After consumers clicked on the image, Chrisco signed them up to the HeadStart Plan without seeking their consent or requiring further steps, and requested payment or debited their accounts. More than 20,000 consumers were signed up to the HeadStart Plan through this promotion. Chrisco has admitted that, in relation to these promotional emails and text messages, it likely made false or misleading representations to consumers in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 22, 2020 18:57:23 GMT 10
If the members have ever sought a good report before buying like I have......This is an eye opener. .................................................................................................................................................................
Service Seeking to pay penalty for misleading online ‘customer’ reviews 22 July 2020
The Federal Court has ordered online tasking platform Service Seeking Pty Ltd to pay $600,000 in penalties for making false or misleading representations regarding reviews of businesses which were offering services on the platform.
Service Seeking operates an online tasking platform where customers can seek quotes for jobs, such as gardening, building or cleaning services from businesses registered with the platform. Service Seeking admitted that it had falsely represented that reviews published on its platform were by customers, when in fact the reviews had been created by the businesses themselves through the use of Service Seeking’s ‘Fast Feedback’ feature.
Service Seeking’s ‘Fast Feedback’ feature allowed businesses to use a template to draft their own reviews and choose a star rating for their service after completing a job. This draft review was then emailed to customers. If a customer did not respond to the business’ self-written review within three days, the review was automatically published under the business’ profile on the Service Seeking platform.
The ‘Fast Feedback’ feature was used to create about 21,000 reviews between 12 July 2016 and 29 November 2018. In that time about 17,000 such reviews were automatically published without customer input.
In his judgment, Justice Jackson said: “Service Seeking engaged in a systematic course of conduct for the self-interested purpose of increasing the attractiveness of its website to businesses and customers in a manner which it must have known would give rise to numerous instances of misleading conduct. This was an abuse of the trust that customers can be inferred to have placed in the site, the existence of which can be inferred from the number of active customers who posted one or more jobs.”
“Service Seeking’s Fast Feedback feature enabled businesses to rate and review themselves, which created a false impression of the number of favourable reviews and the star rating of those businesses,” said ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard.
“Consumers are increasingly relying on online reviews as a way of making informed purchasing decisions. Deceiving them about the authenticity of the reviews in my view is showing contempt for consumers.” “Online reviews need to accurately reflect the independent views and feedback of genuine customers, or the business publishing them risks breaching the Australian Consumer Law,” Ms Rickard said.
The Court also made orders for injunctions, corrective notices and the implementation of a compliance program. Service Seeking admitted liability and made joint submissions to the Federal Court with the ACCC.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 23, 2020 16:46:35 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/decathlon-in-court-for-allegedly-selling-sporting-goods-which-did-not-comply-with-safety-standardsDecathlon in court for allegedly selling sporting goods which did not comply with safety standards 23 July 2020
The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Decathlon (Australia) Pty Ltd (Decathlon) for allegedly selling sports and recreation goods that did not comply with the applicable product safety standards, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
The ACCC alleges that between October 2016 and December 2019, Decathlon offered 14 models of basketball rings and backboards and five models of portable swimming pools for sale that failed to carry the safety labelling, consumer warnings or installation and use instructions required under applicable product safety standards.
In that period, Decathlon sold more than 400 basketball rings and backboards, and nearly 300 portable pools online or at its physical stores. The pools included small inflatable and non-inflatable pools, which were intended for use by small children.
“Safety standards exist to protect consumers when using certain products. It is essential that businesses comply with safety warning and labelling requirements to protect consumers from the risk of serious injury or even death from the use of these products,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
The ACCC alleges that warnings such as “improper installation or swinging on the ring may cause serious injury or death” were missing from many basketball products. The ACCC also alleges Decathlon made a false or misleading representation that some of the basketball rings and backboards were safe to attach to brickwork, when that was not the case. In addition, Decathlon allegedly supplied 66 portable swimming pools which were 30 centimetres deep without required warnings including “children have drowned in portable swimming pools”, “ensure active adult supervision at all times” and “pool fencing laws apply to this pool”.
“We are very concerned that consumers were allegedly not warned about the potential dangers of these products and could have been seriously hurt when they used the pools or basketball hoops,” Ms Rickard said.
|
|
|
Post by dieseltojo on Jul 28, 2020 22:38:08 GMT 10
www.accc.gov.au/media-release/etihad-offers-refunds-for-all-cancelled-flights-purchased-in-australiaEtihad offers refunds for all cancelled flights purchased in Australia 28 July 2020
The ACCC has welcomed Etihad’s recent decision to offer refunds to all consumers who purchased Etihad tickets in Australia which were then cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Etihad has confirmed it will contact consumers who booked directly with the airline, and Australia-based travel agents, to inform them that affected consumers can elect to receive a refund for a cancelled flight, even if they previously accepted a flight credit.
From 26 March 2020, Etihad’s published COVID-19 rebooking policy did not provide these consumers with the right to a refund for flights cancelled due to the pandemic. Etihad updated this policy on 3 June 2020 to extend offers of refunds for flights scheduled to depart from Australia. Etihad was already offering refunds for flights departing from a number of other regions, including the US and European Union.
Following recent engagement with the ACCC’s COVID-19 Taskforce, Etihad has now further revised its policy by offering refunds to all consumers in Australia who purchased tickets, regardless of where their flight was scheduled to depart from.
Etihad’s conditions of carriage state that a consumer can elect to receive a refund in the event that Etihad fails to operate their flight reasonably according to schedule, for any reason. “We are pleased that Etihad is fulfilling its obligations under its conditions of carriage by offering refunds to thousands of Australian customers with cancelled flights,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. “Etihad’s revised policy, and its decision to also offer refunds to consumers who weren’t previously advised of their right to a refund, should serve as a model for other airlines.”
|
|