FOXTEL pays infringement notices for Christmas sale
To asterisk or not to asterisk – surely this is the
eternal question faced by retail companies on a daily basis. The
ACCC is generally pretty antiasterisk. Seems like FOXTEL didn't
get the memo on this one as it carelessly bandied around our little
footnote friend in its Christmas sale advertising.
FOXTEL was forced to pay 7 infringement notices totalling over
$45,000 after it said customers could get a subscription for $55
per month on a 6 month contract in its nationwide Christmas
campaign. But the ad included a star shaped insignia to fine print
T&C's locking customers into a 12 months.
There's two lessons here. The ACCC quite likes its
infringement notice powers. And for your advertising content, the
carpet needs to match the drapes.
Optus fine slashed by nearly $1.7m
Last year we reported that Optus had been under attack for
misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to its "THINK
BIGGER" and "SUPERSONIC" broadband plans. It was
fined a massive $5.26 million by the Federal Court - the largest
penalty ever handed down in a consumer protection case.
On appeal, the full bench of the Federal Court reduced the
penalty to $3.61 million. The reduction was a consequence of some
erroneous factual findings in the trial judgment. Despite the
reduced penalty, the Court said that Optus' conduct was way
serious and a slap on the wrist would not be good enough.
Instead of a slap, they got a headbutt. Right between the eyes.
ACCC bites Apple for selling iPad as '4G'
The consumer watchdog has taken a hefty bite out of Apple for
selling the iPad 3 as "4G" compatible even though it
doesn't work on any Australian 4G networks.
After a bit of bruising, Apple agreed to provide an undertaking
that it would inform its customers that the product was not
compatible with 4G networks and allow customers to return the iPad
and receive a refund if they wished.
Tasting sweet, juicy victory, the ACCC continues the court
proceedings, seeking penalty orders to top off its case against
Google liable for misleading paid search ads
A couple of years back the ACCC sued Google and others for
misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to Google paid search
results. You know, the text ads that appear at the top and on the
right of your Google search results. The ACCC was concerned when
advertisers were using competitors' names in their paid search
At trial, the advertisers were held responsible for any
misleading content in their ads. Google wasn't liable. The
judge said that your average internet user could figure out that
the advertiser was the source of the ad, not Google. The ACCC
appealed the decision against Google.
Apparently the full Federal Court doesn't think that we
internet users are that bright. It overturned the decision and held
Google liable for the content of paid search results. Our
money's on a High Court challenge. Google would be crazy to let
this decision stand.
Questions? Give us a call.
We do not disclaim anything about this article. We're
quite proud of it really.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In some cases these fees or surcharges are higher than what a bank charges to these merchants for use of the system.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).