1 August 2019Online spare parts retailer Big Warehouse has paid a $12,600 penalty after the ACCC issued an infringement notice against the company for allegedly breaching the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by misleading a consumer about their consumer guarantee rights in relation to spare parts they had ordered.
In addition to paying this penalty, Big Warehouse has provided a court-enforceable undertaking to the ACCC in which it admits it was likely to have contravened the ACL by representing to consumers that:

spare parts were available for dispatch, when in fact they needed to be ordered from the manufacturer;
spare parts were compatible with the model of electrical appliance purchased by the consumer, when this was not the case;
the consumer was not entitled to a full refund or replacement where:

a spare part ordered was not supplied within a reasonable time after payment was made;
a spare part was not compatible with the electrical appliance set out in the consumer’s order; or
a spare part was damaged during delivery and the consumer had not purchased insurance from Big Warehouse. 

“Big Warehouse has admitted that when consumers requested a full refund or replacement, they were either denied one, only given a partial refund, or offered a store credit instead,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“According to some complaints, consumers were incorrectly charged for a replacement part in circumstances where they shouldn’t have been. Such charges included a 30 per cent restocking fee to purchase the correct part.”
“If a consumer buys a spare part and is provided the incorrect part or it is damaged on arrival, they are entitled under the Australian Consumer Law to choose a full refund or replacement.”
Under the terms of the enforceable undertaking given to the ACCC, Big Warehouse will provide compensation to certain customers who ordered spare parts and subsequently requested a full refund or replacement.
“We are pleased that Big Warehouse is taking steps to change its policies and compensate consumers,” Ms Court said.
“It is not okay to deny consumers their rights under the consumer law. We will continue to take enforcement action to send a strong deterrent message to businesses like Big Warehouse that this is not acceptable.”
The undertaking is available on the ACCC’s public register at at Big Warehouse Pty Ltd.
Notes to editors
Big Warehouse is an Australian online retailer of spare parts for whitegoods and electronic appliances. It lists over 22 million parts on its website for approximately 300 brands.
The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
The ACCC can issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable grounds to believe a person or a business has contravened certain consumer protection laws.
From September 2017 until June 2019 the ACCC and other ACL regulators received a significant number of complaints in relation to the conduct which Big Warehouse has admitted is likely to have contravened the ACL.
Release number: 131/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Repairs, warranties & refunds
Consumer rights

1 August 2019The ACCC proposes to authorise a new consumer code for retailers of products such as solar generation systems, energy storage systems, electrical vehicle charging and other emerging energy products and services.
The New Energy Tech Consumer Code (the Code) sets minimum standards of good practice and consumer protection and will apply to all aspects of customers’ interactions with participating retailers, including marketing; finance and payments; warranties and complaints handling processes.
“Products like solar panels or battery storage involve significant financial outlays for households,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“This Code aims to give consumers more protections and more information to help them make informed purchases.”
The applicants for authorisation are the Australian Energy Council, Clean Energy Council, Smart Energy Council and Energy Consumer Australia. Membership of the Code would be voluntary.
Signatories to the Code must comply with obligations, including that they:

avoid high pressure sales tactics
ensure their advertising is clear and accurate
educate consumers about their rights
provide clear information about product performance and maintenance
take extra steps to protect vulnerable consumers, and
implement effective complaints handling processes.

Because the Code imposes conditions on the sales practices of competing companies, and includes sanctions for non-compliance, the Code’s developers sought ACCC authorisation to ensure they were not breaching competition laws.
Responsible finance requirements
The ACCC welcomes steps to ensure that credit products are provided responsibly. As presently drafted, signatories to the Code can use only licensed credit providers and certain regulated credit products when offering third-party finance. The Code would effectively prevent signatories from offering finance through ‘buy now pay later’ (BNPL) arrangements.
The ACCC recognises that while BNPL arrangements do not meet the proposed requirements of the Code, some consumers may value these products in cases where they are provided responsibly.
The ACCC is seeking further submissions on whether it is feasible to achieve the consumer protection objectives of the Code while also providing for appropriately regulated BNPL finance to be offered to consumers who choose to use it.
The ACCC will take into account any further submissions before releasing a final determination, expected in September or October 2019. The draft determination proposes to grant authorisation for five years.
Further information about the application for authorisation, including copies of the ACCC’s draft determination and public submissions, is available at New Energy Tech Consumer Code
Background
In August 2017, the COAG Energy Council wrote to industry to collaborate with Energy Consumers Australia to develop an industry code for behind-the-meter (BTM) products and services to address a range of issues in the market.
This led to the formation of the BTM Working Group, which later consulted with various stakeholders and developed the Consumer Code. The applicants for authorisation are all members of the BTM Working Group.
Release number: 132/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Authorisations

29 July 2019The ACCC has appealed the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss part of the ACCC’s case against Kimberly-Clark which relates to claims it made to consumers about its Kleenex Cottonelle ‘flushable’ wipes.
The ACCC had alleged that in representing its products as ‘flushable’ on product packaging and its website, Kimberly-Clark had misled consumers about the suitability of its wipes to be flushed down the toilet.
In June 2019, the Court found that Kimberly-Clark’s ‘flushable’ claims were not false or misleading. 
“We are appealing this decision because we believe the Court made an error in deciding whether it was misleading for Kimberly-Clark to represent that the Kleenex wipes were suitable to be flushed,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“We will argue on appeal that Kimberly-Clark’s flushable claims should have been found to be misleading because there was evidence of the risk of harm these wipes posed to the sewerage system, and that the trial judge was wrong to require evidence that these particular wipes had caused actual harm.”
“The ACCC will also argue that the Court made an error by rejecting the ACCC’s case that Kimberly-Clark had claimed the Kleenex Wipes would break up quickly like toilet paper when flushed,” Mr Sims said.
“The ACCC is aware of problems continuing to be reported by Australian water authorities as a result of non-suitable products, such as wet wipes, being flushed down the toilet and contributing to blockages and other operational issues.”
A hearing for the appeal before the Full Federal Court will be set at a later date.
Background:
The ACCC first took action against Kimberly-Clark in December 2016.
The following Kimberly-Clark products were the subject of these proceedings:

Kleenex Cottonelle Flushable Cleansing Cloths – Sensitive, 42 wipes pack;
Kleenex Cottonelle Flushable Cleansing Cloths – Sensitive (Out & About), 3×10 wipes packs;
Kleenex Cottonelle Flushable Cleansing Cloths – Cotton Fresh, 42 wipes pack; and
Kleenex Cottonelle Flushable Cleansing Cloths – Kids, 42 wipes pack

The products which are the subject of this case have since been discontinued, and replaced with a different range of ‘flushable’ wipes.
In the judgment delivered in June 2019, the Court also found that Kimberly-Clark had misled consumers when it claimed its Kleenex Cottonelle ‘flushable’ wipes were made in Australia, when they were in fact variously made in Germany, South Korea and the UK.
Release number: 126/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

29 July 2019The ACCC is seeking views on a proposed undertaking offered by Nutrien in relation to its proposed acquisition of Ruralco (ASX: RHL).
Nutrien operates rural merchandise stores and other rural services in Australia under the Landmark brand.
Nutrien’s proposed undertaking seeks to address some of the preliminary competition concerns identified by the ACCC in its statement of issues released on 13 June 2019.
It would require Landmark to divest three rural merchandise stores located in Broome (WA), Alice Springs (NT) and Hughenden (Qld) to a purchaser approved by the ACCC. These areas would have a high degree of concentration if the acquisition was to proceed.
“The release of undertakings for public comment should not be interpreted as a signal that the ACCC will ultimately accept them and clear the transaction,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“The undertaking seeks to address only local issues in Broome, Alice Springs and Hughenden, and does not seek to address possible issues at the national or wholesale levels.”
“At the national level, the transaction combines two of the biggest suppliers of rural merchandise to farmers. It also combines two of the largest wholesalers to independent retail outlets. We are continuing to investigate the potential impact of this transaction at the national and wholesale levels,” Mr Keogh said.
The ACCC now seeks views from market participants on whether the undertaking is sufficient and would be likely to alleviate competition concerns in the local markets identified.
Parties wishing to make submissions should do so by 5 August 2019.
The indicative date for the final decision on the matter is 15 August 2019.
More information is available on the ACCC website at Landmark – proposed acquisition of Ruralco
Background
Landmark supplies rural merchandise through its 225 retail stores across the country as well as supplying independent stores on a wholesale basis.
Landmark also provides wool broking, livestock agency and export services, real estate agency and agricultural insurance broking services.
Landmark has been part of rural Australia (through predecessor organisations) for more than 150 years.
Ruralco is a publicly listed company in Australia, formed in 2006 when Combined Rural Traders (CRT) and Roberts Limited merged. Ruralco has been operating (through predecessor organisations) for more than 150 years.
Ruralco provides a very similar range of services to Landmark. It operates 106 rural merchandise stores nationally (operating under a number of brands but notably Roberts and Rodwells) and also supplies member stores via its wholesale arm, CRT. These members may be branded as either CRT or Town & Country.
In addition to those other services offered by Landmark, Ruralco also offers water broking services.
Rural merchandise is an umbrella term for the various agricultural products purchased by farmers for use in operating a farm and includes: fertiliser, agricultural chemicals, seed, fencing, animal health products and other miscellaneous merchandise. Some rural merchandise stores also offer agronomic advice.
Release number: 125/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

26 July 2019The dominance of the leading digital platforms and their impact across Australia’s economy, media and society must be addressed with significant, holistic reform, according to the final report of the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry released today. 
The report contains 23 recommendations, spanning competition law, consumer protection, media regulation and privacy law, reflecting the intersection of issues arising from the growth of digital platforms.
“Our recommendations are comprehensive and forward looking and deal with the many competition, consumer, privacy and news media issues we have identified throughout the course of this Inquiry,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Importantly, our recommendations are dynamic in that they will provide the framework and the information that governments and communities will need to address further issues as they arise. Our goal is to assist the community in staying up to date with these issues and futureproofing our enforcement, regulatory and legal frameworks.” 
During the course of its Inquiry, the ACCC identified many adverse effects associated with digital platforms, many of which flow from the dominance of Google and Facebook.
These include:

The market power of Google and Facebook has distorted the ability of businesses to compete on their merits in advertising, media and a range of other markets
The digital advertising markets are opaque with highly uncertain money flows, particularly for automated and programmatic advertising
Consumers are not adequately informed about how their data is collected and used and have little control over the huge range of data collected
News content creators are reliant on the dominant digital platforms, yet face difficulties in monetising their content
Australian society, like others around the world, has been impacted by disinformation and a rising mistrust of news.

“The dominant digital platforms’ response to the issues we have raised might best be described as ‘trust us’,” Mr Sims said.
“There is nothing wrong with being highly focused on revenue growth and providing increasing value to shareholders; indeed it can be admired. But we believe the issues we have uncovered during this Inquiry are too important to be left to the companies themselves.”
“Action on consumer law and privacy issues, as well as on competition law and policy, will all be vital in dealing with the problems associated with digital platforms’ market power and the accumulation of consumers’ data,” Mr Sims said.
Australian media businesses and news consumers
The ACCC has made a series of recommendations to address the digital platforms’ impact on Australian media businesses and how Australians access ­­­­­­news.
These include:

Requiring designated digital platforms to each provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with codes to address the imbalance in the bargaining relationship between these platforms and news media businesses and recognise the need for value sharing and monetisation of content
Addressing the regulatory imbalance that exists between news media businesses and digital platforms, by harmonizing the media regulatory framework
Targeted grants to support local journalism of about AU$50 million a year
Introducing measures to encourage philanthropic funding of public interest journalism in Australia
ACMA monitoring the digital platforms’ efforts to identify reliable and trustworthy news
Requiring the digital platforms to draft and implement an industry code for handling complaints about deliberately misleading and harmful news stories
Introducing a mandatory take-down ACMA code to assist copyright enforcement on digital platforms.

Promoting competition
The Inquiry notes the acquisition of startups by large digital platforms has the potential to remove future competitive threats. Acquisitions may also increase the platforms’ access to data. Both situations may further entrench a platform’s market power.
The ACCC recommends changes to Australia’s merger laws to expressly require consideration of the effect of potential competition and to recognise the importance of data. The ACCC also recommends that large digital platforms agree to a notification protocol that would alert the ACCC to proposed acquisitions that may impact competition in Australia.
The report also calls on Google to allow Australian users of Android devices (new and existing) to choose their search engine and internet browser from a number of options, as proposed in Europe, rather than being provided with defaults.
Empowering consumers
Effective consumer protections are critical to addressing issues associated with dominant digital platforms. Throughout this Inquiry, the ACCC has identified some problematic data practices with the potential to cause consumer harm.
The ACCC is well advanced with investigations into some of these data practices to determine whether there has been a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
To deal with further data practices that do not fit neatly within the existing consumer law, the ACCC also recommends introducing a general prohibition on unfair commercial practices.
“Introducing this broad, flexible prohibition will increase consumer protections in fast-moving digital markets to safeguard consumers’ ability to make informed and genuine choices,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC has also again recommended unfair contract terms should be prohibited and should attract civil pecuniary penalties, and not just be voidable as they are now.
The ACCC further recommends a mandatory standard to bolster a digital platforms’ internal dispute resolution processes and that an ombudsman scheme be established, to assist with resolving disputes and complaints between consumers and digital platform providers.
Protecting privacy
In light of the overlapping nature of privacy, competition and consumer protection issues in digital markets, the ACCC has made a range of privacy-related recommendations, including:

Strengthening protections in the Privacy Act
Broader reform of the Australian privacy law framework
The introduction of a privacy code of practice specifically for digital platforms
The introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy.

The Inquiry found that digital platforms’ privacy policies are long, complex, vague and difficult to navigate and that many digital platforms do not provide consumers with meaningful control over the collection, use and disclosure of user data.
Problematic data practices include the use of click-wrap agreements and take it or leave it terms.
“We’re very concerned that current privacy policies offer consumers the illusion of control but instead are almost legal waivers that give digital platforms’ broad discretion about how they can use consumers’ data,” Mr Sims said.
“Due to growing concerns in this area, we believe some of the privacy reforms we have recommended should apply economy wide.”
The recommended amendments to the Privacy Act should be supplemented by an enforceable privacy code of practice, developed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), and address data practices specific to digital platforms.
Continued scrutiny of digital platforms
The ACCC recommends the Government establish a specialist digital platforms branch within the ACCC, with standing information-gathering powers, to proactively monitor and investigate potentially anti-competitive conduct by digital platforms and conduct that may breach our consumer laws, and to undertake rolling market studies.
“We believe continuing scrutiny is necessary given the critical position that digital platforms occupy in the digital economy, their continued expansion and the opacity and complexity of the markets in which they operate,” Mr Sims said.
One of the first tasks of the new branch should be to conduct an inquiry into the supply of ad-tech services and the supply of online advertising services by advertising and media agencies.
The inquiry would identify whether any competition or efficiency concerns exist and help achieve greater transparency in the supply of these services. 
“The ACCC branch will also provide regular reports to Government on issues as they arise, work closely with other arms of government to help co-ordinate work in this vital area, and be the crucial link with our overseas counterparts to share learnings and responses," Mr Sims said. 
Expert regulators and agencies to play complementary roles
The ACCC recommends future law enforcement and regulation of digital platforms be dealt with by the current regulators including the ACMA, the OAIC and the ACCC.
“The ACCC, the ACMA and the OAIC are already working together closely and have now built up expertise in the areas covered by this Inquiry,” Mr Sims said.
“There has been global interest in this timely Australian inquiry and the many significant international reports and external developments in the past 18 months. These reports demonstrate the shared concerns and momentum for reform."
“The world has now recognised the impact of the digital platforms’ market power and the impact this has on consumers, news, businesses and society more broadly. Continuing national and world action will now follow,” Mr Sims said.
Release number: 124/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Communications

25 July 2019The ACCC has released a statement of issues raising preliminary concerns about ANZ Terminals’ proposed acquisition of GrainCorp Liquid Terminals Australia Pty Ltd (ASX:GNC).
ANZ Terminals and GrainCorp both provide port-side bulk liquid storage services in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, where they compete to store liquids including edible oils, tallow, non-flammable industrial chemicals and base oils for customers.
“Our preliminary view is that the acquisition will remove a significant competitor in what is an already concentrated industry in NSW, Victoria, and South Australia,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“We are also considering the impact on competition in the east coast states more broadly, including Queensland.”
“In some locations, the acquisition will lead to ANZ Terminals becoming the only storage provider for some liquid products. This loss of competition could result in higher prices for customers, or lower levels of service,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC considers that there is limited vacant land available for lease by new storage providers at the ports, creating a key barrier to entry for potential new competitors.
“Even where land may be available, it is highly uncertain that any new entrants would emerge in the bulk liquids sector to challenge ANZ Terminals,” Mr Sims said.
ANZ Terminals has provided a section 87B undertaking to divest the Osborne terminal in South Australia. The ACCC is still considering whether the undertaking will address the competition concerns in South Australia.
“The proposed undertaking does not address the preliminary concerns we have in New South Wales and Victoria,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC invites submissions from interested parties on the statement of issues by 8 August 2019. The ACCC’s final decision is scheduled for 17 October 2019.
The statement of issues is available at ANZ Terminals Pty Ltd proposed acquisition of GrainCorp Liquid Terminals Australia Pty Ltd
Background
ANZ Terminals is a wholly owned subsidiary of Helios Investments Australia Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyperion Investments Australia Pty Ltd.
ANZ Terminals provides bulk liquid storage services, specialising in the storage and handling of bulk liquid edible oils and fats, petroleum products and industrial chemicals for third party customers.
ANZ Terminals will also acquire GLT’s bulk liquid storage facilities in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia, but ANZ Terminals does not currently have a presence in those states.
GLT is a wholly owned subsidiary of GrainCorp Commodity Management (Holdings) Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of GrainCorp Limited (GNC). The business of GLT includes activities across the edible oils and fats supply chain.
GLT stores and handles the bulk liquid requirements for GNC, as well as providing these services to third party customers for edible oils and fats, petroleum products and industrial chemicals.
Release number: 122/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

25 July 2019The ACCC has conditionally authorised AP Eagers’ (ASX: APE) proposed acquisition of Automotive Holdings Group (AHG) (ASX: AHG), following an undertaking from AP Eagers to sell its existing new car dealerships in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region to a third party. 
The merger did not raise concerns nationally, or in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, where the overlap between the operations of AP Eagers and AHG is limited and there is sufficient competition from other dealerships and suppliers.
However, significant concerns were raised in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region where AHG is AP Eagers’ closest competitor.
“We were concerned that a combined AP Eagers and AHG would own about half of the 78 dealerships in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region, and in metropolitan Newcastle, about three quarters of the dealerships that sell the top ten car brands,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.
“If we had allowed AP Eagers to combine its dealerships with AHG’s in this region, the reduction in competition in that market may have meant consumers would pay more for new cars.”
“Although enquiries can be made over the phone or online, consumers usually still need to visit a dealership to negotiate the best possible price on a new car,” Mr Ridgeway said.
“This limited ability to ‘shop around’ online to understand the actual price you would pay for a new car means it is important that customers have access to a range of competing dealers in their local area.”
Under the court enforceable undertaking AP Eagers will sell its new car dealerships and related businesses in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region to an ACCC approved, independent purchaser.  However it will retain the AHG new car dealerships in the region that it proposes to acquire.
“AP Eagers’ divestiture means there will be no increase in market concentration in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region,” Mr Ridgeway said.
Further information, including the ACCC’s determination, is available on the ACCC’s public register at AP Eagers Limited proposed acquisition of Automotive Holdings Group Limited.
Background
AP Eagers and AHG are the two largest automotive retailers in Australia. AP Eagers and AHG supply new and used cars, trucks and buses, as well as associated products and services such as car repairs and servicing, authorised car parts, insurance and finance. Their operations overlap in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region of New South Wales (which includes Cessnock, Maitland/Rutherford, Singleton and Port Stephens). AP Eagers is the largest shareholder of AHG, holding 28.84 per cent of AHG’s listed securities as at 5 April 2019.
AP Eagers’ application is the first following reforms in 2017 to the merger authorisation process (pursuant to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), which reinstated the ACCC’s ability to consider applications for merger authorisation.  Previously authorisation applications were made directly to the Australian Competition Tribunal.
Merger authorisation provides an alternative avenue for merger clearance to the informal merger review process, which is the most commonly used avenue used by merger parties.   The authorisation process is public.  Where merger authorisation is granted, merger parties are exempt from the merger laws.
The ACCC may grant authorisation for a proposed merger if it is satisfied the merger is not likely to substantially lessen competition, or where the likely public benefits outweigh the likely public detriments.
The key requirements of the divestiture undertaking include:

the divestiture of AP Eagers’ new car dealerships and related business sites in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region
the approval by the ACCC of the proposed purchaser
the transfer of all necessary assets, agreements (including dealership agreements), licences, authorisations and personnel, and
the appointment of an independent auditor to audit and report upon AP Eagers’ compliance with the divestiture undertaking.

Complying with the divestiture undertaking is also a condition of the authorisation.
Release number: 123/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

24 July 2019The ACCC has instituted proceedings against debt collection agency Panthera Finance Pty Ltd alleging it unduly harassed three consumers over debts they did not owe.
The ACCC alleges that Panthera repeatedly contacted the three consumers for the payment of the disputed debts despite being advised that they were not liable for the debts, and in two cases placed an incorrect default listing on the consumers’ credit rating files. It also allegedly imposed onerous requirements on these consumers to “prove” they didn’t owe the debts which Panthera was trying to collect.
In one case, the ACCC alleges that Panthera used coercion, made false representations and engaged in unconscionable conduct when dealing with the consumer, even though it knew the consumer urgently needed an incorrect credit default listing removed to obtain finance for a new car.
“We were very concerned about complaints of Panthera’s behaviour, which we allege breaches the Australian Consumer Law and caused extreme distress to the three consumers involved,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“Harassment of consumers about debts is always unacceptable. In this case, we allege Panthera’s conduct was particularly egregious as we understand they continued to harass these three consumers after they became aware that they didn’t owe any money.”
“This action is part of our continuing joint efforts with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to crack down on shady debt collection practices,” Ms Court said.
“We are extremely disappointed that parts of the debt collection industry continue to disrespect consumers.”
“We want to warn all debt collection agencies that the kind of conduct alleged in this case is not acceptable and will be the subject of further enforcement action against other businesses if necessary,” Ms Court said. 
The ACCC is seeking pecuniary penalties, declarations, injunctions, orders for a compliance program, publication orders and costs.
It is also claimed in the alternative that Panthera breached the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act by engaging in the same conduct. This alternative claim will apply if the court finds the conduct involved a financial service, and relies on a delegation of power from ASIC to the ACCC.
Notes to editors
Panthera is a debt collection company which collects debts, both on behalf of other businesses and by purchasing non-performing debt for significantly less than its face value and then attempting to recover the full amount.
Over the last two years around 100 people have complained to the ACCC about Panthera’s debt collection activities.
In December 2018, the Federal Court ordered one of Australia’s largest debt collection firms, ACM Group Ltd, to pay $750,000 in penalties for ACM’s misleading, harassing, coercive and unconscionable pursuit of underpaid debts from two vulnerable consumers.
In October 2018, the Federal Court ordered Equifax Australia Information Services and Solutions Pty Ltd to pay $3.5m in penalties for misleading and deceptive conduct, and unconscionable conduct in relation to credit report services.
Since 2014 the ACCC has had a standing delegation of certain of ASIC powers and functions for the purposes of investigation and commencement and conduct of any proceedings in relation to matters involving financial products and services provided as part of, or in connection with credit repair and debt collection.
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.
Concise statement
ACCC v Panthera Finance Pty Ltd
(

PDF 330.38 KB
)

Release number: 121/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Debt collection

23 July 2019Scams reported to the ACCC involving identity theft or the loss of personal/banking information have cost Australians at least $16 million this year, and this figure is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.
Four in 10 Scamwatch reports in 2019 involve attempts to gain information or the actual loss of victims’ information.
“If you think scammers might have gained access to your personal information, even in a scam completely unrelated to your finances, immediately contact your bank,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“Timeliness in alerting your financial institution is absolutely crucial, and will give you the best possible chance at recovering your funds.”
Some of the ways scammers obtain personal or banking information are:

phishing emails and text messages which impersonate banks or utility providers seeking your login details
fake online quizzes and surveys
fake job advertisements
remote access scams in which the scammer has direct access to everything on your computer
sourcing information about you from social media platforms
direct requests for scans of your driver’s license or passport, often in the course of a dating and romance scam.

“No one is really selling an iPhone for $1, or rewarding the completion of a survey with expensive electronic goods or large gift vouchers. They’re scams to get your valuable personal information,” Ms Rickard said.
“The identity thieves can make victims’ lives a nightmare. They’ll change the victims’ phone carrier so they lose service and set up mail redirections so they’re in the dark about what’s going on.”
Scammers can empty victims’ bank accounts, take out tens of thousands of dollars in bank loans under victims’ names, and purchase expensive furniture or electronics under ‘no-repayments for 12 months’ schemes.
Lost personal information also leaves victims more susceptible to future scams. Scammers will use the victim’s personal information to seem more convincing in cold calls.
“The trick is to be alert to the signs. If your mobile phone suddenly loses coverage, you haven’t received expected electronic or physical mail, or you receive unexpected notifications from a financial institution, call your bank.”
If you have been the victim of identity theft, contact IDCARE on 1300 432 273. IDCARE can guide you through the steps to reclaim your identity.
People can report a scam to the ACCC via Scamwatch.
Release number: 120/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Scams

22 July 2019Future growth prospects for the Australian wine industry will be heavily dependent on reforms to improve competition for wine grapes, according to the ACCC.
The current low level of competition between winemakers buying grapes not only leads to inefficient outcomes in production and pricing but also discourages innovation and capital investment, ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said in a speech to the Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference in Adelaide today.
Mr Keogh said the wine grape growing industry is largely characterised by imbalances in bargaining power between a small number of major buyers and a much larger number of small-scale sellers.
“The imbalance in bargaining power results in growers accepting contracts with sub-optimal terms, with limited ability to resolve disputes, and having to wait sometimes up to nine months for payment for their grapes,” Mr Keogh told the conference.
“The ACCC’s wine grape market study interim report found these significant issues represent a very real threat to the growth of the wine grape industry, especially in an era of scarce resources such as water.
“The wine grape industry will need capital investment by growers to improve irrigation efficiency and to plant improved grape varieties.
“Only when the growers have greater confidence and certainty in the market will they be prepared to undertake this investment.”
Mr Keogh said a lack of pricing transparency is also hindering the effective operation of the market.
“Increased pricing transparency will provide better price certainty to the market, and not only improve growers’ bargaining power but also boost competition between winemakers.
“We are conducting the market study because of the significant number of confidential complaints received from growers about how their market works,” said Mr Keogh. “Many growers have told us that they were reluctant to raise concerns with their winemakers due to fear of retribution.”
The ACCC is currently seeking feedback from the industry on its interim report.
Notes to editors
The ACCC’s market study of the wine grape industry was launched in September 2018, after feedback from industry participants during previous ACCC engagements with the industry.
This market study focuses on what are referred to in the industry as warm climate grape growing regions. The three warm climate regions are the Riverland, Murray Valley (which includes the Murray–Darling and Swan Hill regions) and Riverina. Around 1500 growers operate in these regions, which produce approximately two-thirds of Australia’s wine grapes.
The ACCC has been consulting with a wide range of industry participants during the market study, including through two public forums and other meetings held in warm climate grape production regions during November 2018, attended by ACCC staff and Mr Keogh.
For further information see: Wine grape market study.
Release number: 119/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Industry

Topics

Agriculture

18 July 2019M2 Energy Pty Ltd (Dodo) and CovaU Pty Ltd (CovaU) have paid penalties totalling $37,800 and $12,600 respectively after the ACCC issued each energy retailer with infringement notices for alleged misleading claims about discounts available on their energy plans.
Dodo and CovaU have both committed to refund affected customers.
The ACCC considered both businesses made false and misleading claims about percentage discounts consumers would receive because those discounts applied to Dodo and CovaU’s market offer rates which were higher than Dodo and CovaU’s standing offer rates.
“As a result of using higher market offer rates to calculate the percentage discount, we allege the actual savings offered to consumers were much lower than advertised,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Energy retailers are reminded that any discount must be genuine and not based on confusing and inappropriate calculations which result in inflated percentage discount claims being advertised to consumers,” Mr Sims said.
From 1 July 2019, the Retail Electricity Code limits the standing offer prices that are charged to consumers in New South Wales, South Australia and south-east Queensland using a cap called the Default Market Offer (DMO). The Code also requires retailers to advertise the prices of their plans by reference to the DMO. Similar obligations apply in Victoria under its ‘Victorian Default Offer’.
“While the Australian Consumer Law allows us to pursue misleading claims after the fact, the Code and the new default market offer will help consumers to compare plans in a much more transparent way,” Mr Sims said. 
“With the default market offer now mandated as the standard base rate, energy discount claims can now be easily understood, enabling consumers to shop around for a better deal without being potentially misled by confusing discount advertisements.”
The new Retail Electricity Code was implemented by the Australian Government in response to recommendations made in the ACCC’s Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry report.
Background:
Between October 2017 to April 2019 Dodo advertised discounts on plans in Victoria based on market usage and/or daily supply rates which were around 4% higher than its standing offer rates.
Similarly, CovaU advertised discounts on electricity and gas plans in Victoria and NSW from January to December 2018 based on market offer usage rates which were up to 20% higher for electricity and up to 7% higher for gas, than the rates which applied to CovaU’s standing offers.
Dodo and CovaU have committed to refund affected customers. The refunds paid will vary depending on where a customer lives, how much electricity or gas they used and how long they have been on the affected plans. Customers will be refunded an amount equal to the difference between the market rates and the equivalent standing offer rates on all bills paid during the time period in question.
The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Notes to editors:
The ACCC has previously taken court action or issue infringement notices against energy retailers over their discount claims including Kleenheat, Click Energy, One Big Switch, Alinta Energy, AGL and Origin Energy.
In July 2018, the ACCC published the final report on its Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry. The report recommended that the current retail ‘standing’ offers be abolished and replaced with a new ‘default’ offer that was consistent across all retailers. The report also recommended that the default offer be used as a reference point for any discounts to make it easier for consumers to genuinely compare offers.
Examples of website advertisements by Dodo and CovaU are below.
CovaU

Dodo

Release number: 118/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Energy

17 July 2019Uber Eats has committed to changing its contracts with restaurants following an investigation by the ACCC.
From at least 2016, Uber Eats’ contract terms made restaurants responsible for the delivery of meal orders, in circumstances where they had no control over that delivery process once the food left their restaurant.
Uber Eats’ contract terms give it the right to refund consumers and deduct that amount from the restaurant even when the problem with the meal may not have been the fault of the restaurant.
“Following our investigation, Uber Eats has committed to changing its contract terms that we believe are unfair, because they make restaurants responsible and financially liable for elements outside of their control,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“We consider these terms to be unfair because they appear to cause a significant imbalance between restaurants and Uber Eats; the terms were not reasonably necessary to protect Uber Eats and could cause detriment to restaurants.”
Uber Eats has agreed to amend these terms, to clarify that restaurants will only be responsible for matters within their control such as incorrect food items or incorrect and missing orders.
Under the amended contracts, restaurants will also be able to dispute responsibility for any refunds to customers and Uber Eats will reasonably consider these disputes.
“We will continue to monitor Uber Eats’ conduct to ensure restaurants are not unfairly held responsible for matters outside of their control and Uber Eats does not hold anyone else responsible for parts of the service it controls,” Mr Sims said.
“Ensuring small businesses aren’t subject to unfair contract terms by larger businesses is one of our top priorities.”
“Business are warned that if they include unfair contract terms in their contracts, they will risk close scrutiny from the ACCC,” Mr Sims said.
Under the Australian Consumer Law as it presently stands, a large business including or relying upon an unfair contract term against a smaller business is not illegal and penalties cannot be imposed for such conduct. However, a Court can declare such terms to be void and not enforceable.
“We have called for legislative changes so the ACCC can seek penalties and compensation for small businesses where large businesses impose unfair terms.” Mr Sims said.
“We welcome the Government’s commitment in March this year to consult on options to strengthen unfair contract term protections for small business.”
In addition to these contract terms, the ACCC was also investigating whether a contract clause which referred to Uber Eats not providing logistics services was misleading. The ACCC was concerned by these terms given Uber Eats’ role in determining the pool of drivers available to restaurants, their payments, and providing facilities such as the consumer’s address, map services and GPS tracking to assist the driver in delivering meals. Uber Eats also agreed to remedy this clause.
“We welcome Uber Eats agreeing to remove the statement in its contracts saying it does not provide logistics services, because clearly, in our view they do,” Mr Sims said.
Uber Eats will begin rolling out changes to its contracts shortly and says all will be completed by December 2019. Uber Eats has committed not to enforce the terms that the ACCC considers to be unfair while these changes are completed.
Background
The ACCC has published guidance on unfair contract terms for small businesses which can be found here: Unfair contract terms: New protection for small businesses
Release number: 117/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Small business

Topics

Contracts

16 July 2019Vodafone has admitted to making false or misleading representations about its third-party Direct Carrier Billing (DCB) service and will contact and refund impacted consumers, following an ACCC investigation.
The investigation was carried out by the ACCC under a delegation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)’s powers.
Vodafone admitted that it likely breached the ASIC Act from at least 2015, by charging consumers for content they had not agreed to buy or had purchased unknowingly.
Vodafone has given a court enforceable undertaking relating to the billing service, which charged Vodafone customers for ringtones, games and other digital content provided by third parties.
The DCB service was automatically enabled on Vodafone customers’ mobile accounts, and purchases could occur with as little as one or two clicks. The purchases would then be charged on the customers’ next Vodafone bill.
The content was marketed and provided by third parties who paid Vodafone commissions for sales to its customers.
“Through this service, thousands of Vodafone customers ended up being charged for content that they did not want or need, and were completely unaware that they had purchased,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
Vodafone has undertaken to contact potentially affected customers and offer refunds where appropriate. It will also review any complaints and deal with those customers in good faith. 
“Other companies should note, money made by misleading consumers will need to be repaid,” Mr Sims said.
In response to an increase in complaints about the service during 2014 and 2015, Vodafone began phasing out DCB subscriptions in mid-2015, and cancelled its arrangements with certain third party providers of digital content.
However, consumers could still be charged for one-off purchases without any identity verification until March 2018.
Vodafone customers are encouraged to check their Vodafone mobile account and if they believe unauthorised charges were applied, they should contact Vodafone on 1300 650 410. 
This enforcement action follows ACCC proceedings against Telstra and Optus in relation to their DCB services.
Vodafone’s DCB service
Vodafone offered a DCB service from at least 1 January 2013 to 1 March 2018.
The DCB service allowed customers to purchase digital content from third party developers such as games, ringtones and apps (but did not include content acquired from the usual app marketplaces like Google Play or the App Store).
Charges were automatically applied to Vodafone customers’ pre-paid and post-paid mobile accounts.
Vodafone’s current DCB service is only available for a limited amount of content and requires express customer agreement. This service had not been the subject of complaints to the ACCC.
Notes to editors
The undertaking is published on the ACCC’s register here: Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Limited and will be published on ASIC’s undertaking register.  Vodafone’s compliance with it will be monitored by the ACCC over the next 12 months.
The ASIC Act prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial products and services, such as Vodafone’s DCB service. ASIC has delegated to the ACCC powers and functions under the ASIC Act in relation to financial products and services provided in connection with telecommunications services. The ACCC has accepted Vodafone’s undertaking in accordance with this delegation.
Release number: 116/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

12 July 2019The ACCC will today begin a safety review of products designed for infants such as bouncers, rockers and inclined sleep products.
The market review will be on inclined baby products used for sleeping, where the baby’s head and back are inclined, and may include a harness or belt to secure the baby into the product.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission has reported that at least 74 infant fatalities have occurred in the United States while using bouncers, rockers and recliners.
Of these fatalities, more than 30 occurred in the Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper and five in the Kids II Rocking Sleeper, usually after the infants rolled from their back to their stomach or side, and suffocated. The ACCC advises all Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper and the Kids II Rocking Sleeper models sold in Australia have been voluntarily recalled and there have been no reports of injuries or death.
The ACCC’s market review will include a wide range of products including bouncers, rockers, swings, loungers, bassinet-type products, wedges, recliners and inclined sleep accessories, some which claim to be safe and suitable for sleeping.
“We’re focusing on these sorts of products because of recent recalls and increasing concerns regarding the use of infant inclined products,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“We are going to take a thorough look at the types of infant inclined products available in Australia and assess the potential risks associated with their use for sleeping or, even in some cases, playing.”
The market review will also include a review of scientific literature, scoping of available incident data, consideration of international regulation and changes, as well as engagement with industry, health experts and international product safety regulators as required.
“One of the ACCC’s Product Safety Priorities for 2019 is to help prevent injuries and deaths to infants caused by unsafe sleeping products,” Ms Rickard said.
“The ACCC urges parents and caregivers to follow expert advice about safe sleep practices – both night and day, place babies to sleep on their backs on a firm, flat surface without pillows, bumpers or other items in the sleep environment and with bedding tucked in securely or alternatively place baby in a safe baby sleeping bag.”
Further information on the Australian recalls is available on the Product Safety Australia website at www.ProductSafety.gov.au.
Advice to consumers
If you own any type of infant inclined product:

never leave your baby unsupervised in the product
stop using the product when your baby begins to roll
carefully follow the manufacturer’s instructions for use of the product
put the product on a flat floor surface, away from potential hazards.

Advice to suppliers (manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers)
Suppliers should:

provide adequate warnings and instructions to consumers describing safe use and potential risks associated with these products
review infant inclined product lines to ensure they are safe for use, including assessing whether these products could be foreseeably misused by consumers and result in an increased risk of death or serious injury.

Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper
Kids II Australia Pty Ltd – Rocking Sleeper

Release number: 115/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Business
Consumers
Small business

Topics

Advertising
Mandatory standards
Online shopping
Consumer advice
Consumer rights

11 July 2019The ACCC has granted interim authorisation to allow the Australian Banking Association (ABA) to take immediate steps to make certain changes to the Banking Code of Practice.
These changes come in response to recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Hayne Royal Commission).
The interim authorisation allows member banks to agree not to charge default interest on loans secured by agricultural land in drought or natural disaster declared areas.
It also allows member banks to agree not to charge dishonour fees or overdrawn fees or allow informal overdrafts on basic bank accounts.
Interim authorisation removes the risk that the ABA and its member banks would breach competition laws by agreeing to make, and implement, changes to the Banking Code. 
The ABA also intends to amend the Banking Code to define the minimum features of a basic bank account. While welcoming the proposals overall, some consumer groups have raised some concerns and suggested improvements to the basic banking proposals.
The ACCC will consider any submissions and possible changes the ABA proposes in response to these issues before deciding whether to grant interim authorisation for the basic banking proposals. 
“We’re allowing the banks to start making important changes following the Hayne Royal Commission, and for them to start taking steps to ensure they are prepared ahead of a new Banking Code coming into effect next year,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said today.
Interim authorisation commences immediately and remains in place unless it is revoked by the ACCC or the when the ACCC completes its assessment of the application for authorisation.
The ACCC expects to issue a draft determination on the ABA’s authorisation application in September 2019. 
Background
On 22 May 2019 the ABA sought ACCC authorisation to implement revisions to the Banking Code in response to the Hayne Royal Commission.
The proposed changes would come into force on 1 March 2020, pending ASIC approval of a second round of changes to the Banking Code separate to this review process.
The ACCC’s decision in relation to interim authorisation permits the ABA and member banks to begin preparations for the implementation of the revised Code next year, and for individual ABA member banks to make changes in accordance with the recommendations of the Hayne Royal Commission.
The ACCC’s decision is separate to ASIC’s review process.  Under s1101A of the Corporations Act,  ASIC has broad discretion to approve, on application, codes of conduct that relate to the activities of Australian financial services licensees. Approval by ASIC is not mandatory for a code of conduct, but can help provide consumers with a level of confidence in the code.
More information about the ACCC’s interim decision and the ABA’s substantive application for authorisation is available on the public registers at: Public Register – Australian Banking Association.
Release number: 114/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Topics

Banking & finance

10 July 2019Dodo Services Pty Limited (Dodo) has agreed to refund up to $360,000 to around 16,000 customers for claims that its entry-level NBN broadband plans were ‘perfect for streaming’.
The refunds are part of a court-enforceable undertaking made to the ACCC after Dodo admitted its conduct was likely to be false or misleading and in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law. 
From November 2015 to March 2018, Dodo advertised its NBN broadband plans as ‘perfect for streaming’, including for plans with maximum speeds of 12 megabits (Mbps). Some of these plans only had 10 gigabytes (GB) of included data.
“We were concerned that Dodo customers on these plans could not reliably stream high quality video, particularly when others in the household were using the internet at the same time. At 12Mbps, Dodo’s customers could not stream ultra HD video at all,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The ACCC also considered that Dodo customers would use up their data allowance after a modest amount of streaming when their included monthly data is limited to 10GB.
“According to Netflix, high definition streaming uses up to 3GB of data per hour. With these plans a customer would have to pay extra if they streamed just two or three movies.”
“We don’t believe NBN plans with just 10GB of included data are ‘perfect for streaming’.” Mr Sims said.
“Consumers rely on how internet providers describe their services when choosing the best broadband plan for their needs, so these descriptions must be accurate.”
“It is simply unacceptable for an internet service provider to tell consumers that their services are ‘perfect’ for a particular use, and to then charge them extra when they use the service as advertised,” Mr Sims said.  
“The ACCC will continue to address consumer issues in the provision of broadband services, including misleading use and performance claims made by providers.”
As part of the undertaking provided to the ACCC, Dodo has agreed to provide refunds to around 16,000 current and former Dodo customers on affected plans who incurred excess data charges during the period when the ‘perfect for streaming’ advertisements were published. Those customers who were subject to excess data charges and are still with Dodo will also be offered the option to exit their contract at no cost.
A copy of the undertaking is available at: Dodo Services Pty Ltd
Background
Dodo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vocus Group Pty Limited. Dodo is a supplier of retail fixed-line NBN broadband plans, in addition to other services.
The NBN is a wholesale-only broadband access network, being built and owned by NBN Co Limited.
Video streaming services generally operate by reducing picture quality when the available speed of an internet connection being used to deliver the streaming service falls below certain levels. Internet speeds above 12Mbps are required to receive a reliable high quality streaming service of HD content while using the internet connection for additional purposes.
In May 2019, the ACCC published updated broadband speed claims guidance for providers on how to advertise broadband services, including performance and use claims such as those the subject of this undertaking.
Release number: 113/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

5 July 2019The Federal Court has found that Woolworths’ environmental claims that its ‘Select eco’ range of disposable plates, bowls and cutlery were “biodegradable and compostable” were not false or misleading.
“We argued that Woolworths’ claims meant a consumer could reasonably expect the disposable products would decompose in landfills or domestic composting within a reasonable time,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“We took this case because we believed the representations were false or misleading and Woolworths did not have a reasonable basis to make these claims. We are carefully considering the Court’s judgment.”
“We will continue to take cases against businesses that we believe are making misleading environmental claims about their products,” Mr Sims said.
Background
The ACCC instituted proceedings against Woolworths in 2018.
Woolworths’ ‘Select eco’ bowls and plates are made of bagasse, a fibrous matter that remains after sugarcane or sorghum stalks are crushed to extract their juice.
Woolworths’ ‘Select eco’ cutlery are made of Crystallised Polylactic Acid (CPLA), which consists of a combination of fermented corn starch, chalk and other additives.
Guidance on environmental claims is published on the ACCC’s website: Your consumer rights: environmental claims. 
Release number: 112/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

4 July 2019The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung) alleging it made false, misleading and deceptive representations in advertising the water resistance of various ‘Galaxy’ branded mobile phones.
Since around February 2016, Samsung has widely advertised on social media, online, TV, billboards, brochures and other media that the Galaxy phones are water resistant and depicted them being used in, or exposed to, oceans and swimming pools.
Samsung also advertised the Galaxy phones as being water resistant up to 1.5 metres deep for 30 minutes. The ACCC’s case involves over 300 advertisements.
“The ACCC alleges Samsung’s advertisements falsely and misleadingly represented Galaxy phones would be suitable for use in, or for exposure to, all types of water, including in ocean water and swimming pools, and would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone, when this was not the case,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The ACCC claims Samsung did not have a reasonable basis for making the representations because:

It did not test or know of testing (or sufficient testing) about how exposing a Galaxy phone to water (including non-fresh water) affected its usable life;
It held the view that using Galaxy phones in liquid other than fresh water could damage them. For example, Samsung’s website states that the new Galaxy S10 phone range is ‘not advised for beach or pool use’;
It has denied warranty claims from consumers whose phones were damaged when used in water.

Aside from not having a reasonable basis, the ACCC also claims that the representations are false, misleading and deceptive, because the Galaxy phones were not suitable for use in all types of water, and the life of the phones could or would likely be adversely affected if used in water (including non-fresh water).
“Samsung itself has acknowledged that water resistance is an important factor influencing Australian consumer decisions when they choose what mobile phone to purchase,” Mr Sims said.
Samsung’s Galaxy phones which were advertised as being water resistant were sold at a higher price than Samsung phones which do not have this feature.
“Samsung’s advertisements, we believe, denied consumers an informed choice and gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage,” Mr Sims said.
Samsung has sold more than four million Galaxy branded phones in Australia.
“Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn’t be to attract customers,” Mr Sims said.
“Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses cannot mislead consumers about their products’ capabilities. Any attempt to do so will risk court action from the ACCC.”
The ACCC is seeking penalties, consumer redress orders, injunctions, declarations, publication orders, an order as to findings of fact, and costs.
Background
Phones subject to the ACCC’s case are the S10e, S10, S10 Plus, S9, S9 Plus, S8, S8 Plus, S7, S7 Edge, Note 9, Note 8, Note 7, A8, A7, and A5, manufactured between 2016 and 2019.
Samsung’s promotions included advertisements on its website, in social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram), television, billboards, radio, brochures, YouTube, email marketing, press releases, sponsored articles, in its stores and in other retailers’ stores.
Examples of Samsung’s advertisements are below:

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.
Concise statement
ACCC v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd_Concise Statement
(

PDF 2.5 MB
)

Release number: 109/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

4 July 2019ACCC Chair Rod Sims has welcomed Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s announcement today that Stephen Ridgeway will join the agency as a Commissioner.
Mr Ridgeway has been appointed for a term of five years. He brings to the ACCC extensive experience as a leading lawyer specialising in competition and consumer law, including in large-scale litigation, merger review and infrastructure access matters.
Mr Ridgeway spent 10 years at the Australian Government Solicitor where he acted as a senior legal advisor to the ACCC. He moved into commercial practice in 1998, becoming partner at Blake Dawson before moving to King & Wood Mallesons’ competition and regulatory unit.
Mr Ridgeway was National Chair of the Law Council of Australia’s, Business Law Sections’ Competition and Consumer Committee during 2011 and 2012, and was an Executive Member of the Business Law Section at the Law Council of Australia from 2016 to 2018.
He holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Australian National University and a Bachelor of Science with Honours from the University of New South Wales.
“We are extremely pleased to have someone of Stephen’s calibre joining the Commission, and we are looking forward to drawing on his impressive legal expertise in our competition work in particular,” Mr Sims said.
“Stephen is a leading expert on competition law issues in Australia, and has made many outstanding contributions to law reform discussions in this area.”
Mr Ridgeway replaces Roger Featherston, who stepped down this month after five years at the ACCC.
Mr Featherston was chair of the ACCC’s Mergers and Adjudication committees, and also served on the Enforcement and Communications committees. He made significant contributions to some of the major inquiries conducted by the ACCC in recent years, including the East Coast Gas Inquiry, the Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry, the Digital Platforms Inquiry, and the Mobile Roaming Inquiry and the Communications Sector Market Study.
“Roger’s knowledge, experience and wise counsel have been invaluable to this agency. His contributions have helped improve competition in Australia and have helped deliver many important outcomes for Australian consumers,” Mr Sims said.
“His involvement in the ACCC’s mergers work has been particularly notable, but his insights and advice have influenced our work in so many areas.”
“We wish Roger all the best.”
Release number: 110/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Business
Industry
Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Cartels
Competing fairly

4 July 2019Virgin Australia granted interim authorisation to cooperate with Virgin Atlantic
The ACCC has granted interim authorisation for Virgin Australia (ASX: VAH) to cooperate with Virgin Atlantic on flights between Australia and the United Kingdom/Ireland, via Hong Kong, Los Angeles and any other future mutual connecting points.
While the two airlines are separate businesses, they already have a codeshare arrangement which allows them to market flights on planes flown by the other.
Authorisation will allow the two airlines to coordinate on a wide range of matters such as jointly managing prices, inventory, and marketing strategies, which would not currently be permitted in their existing arm’s length commercial codeshare and loyalty arrangements.
Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic do not currently operate flights on any of the relevant routes.
“We do not think this enhanced cooperation is likely to lessen competition on the routes between Australia and the British Isles,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
Interim authorisation will remain in effect while the ACCC considers the application for authorisation in more detail, with a draft determination, which will be open for public comment, expected by September.
The ACCC’s interim authorisation statement of reasons is available at Virgin Australia & Virgin Atlantic.
Background
Authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any public detriment.
Further information can be found at Virgin Australia & Virgin Atlantic
Release number: 111/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917