FOXTEL pays infringement notices for Christmas sale advertising

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. Ouch!

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 Apple.

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 keywords.

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.