3 June 2019Harmful market practices are restricting competition in some Australian wine grape growing regions and limiting the potential for growth of Australia’s wine industry, according to an interim report released today by the ACCC.
Through its detailed market study into the wine grape sector, the ACCC has proposed measures to address concerning practices it believes are common across high-production, warm climate wine grape-growing regions. 
The ACCC has identified a lack of transparency and certainty over how grapes are priced and assessed for quality, as well as supply contracts that run for multiple years but do not offer price certainty to growers. 
“We found that winemakers do not publicise the prices they pay to growers and often have confidentiality terms to prevent growers from disclosing their indicative and final prices to other growers,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“Meanwhile, various supply arrangements appear to favour incumbent buyers of bulk wine grapes, such as exclusive supply clauses, automatic and long term contract extensions, and difficult contract termination obligations on growers.”
The ACCC is also concerned about delayed payment terms for growers, which can sometimes stretch up to nine months after grapes have been delivered to a winery. 
“There are significant bargaining power imbalances between large winemakers and the small growers who supply them, a dynamic that is common between suppliers and processors across the agricultural sector,” Mr Keogh said. 
“This power imbalance is particularly evident in the bulk wine grapes industry.” 
The ACCC’s interim recommendations include: 

winemakers in warm climate regions be required to provide indicative and final grape prices to an independent third party for simultaneous public release
payment terms for wine grapes be shortened so growers are paid within 30 days of delivering grapes
objective standardised testing for wine grape quality assessments be developed, and
the dispute resolution mechanisms in the Australian Wine Industry Code of Conduct be improved.

“Increased transparency over indicative and final prices is likely to lead to greater competition between winemakers, and better outcomes for growers,” Mr Keogh said.
During the study, the ACCC closely examined the operation of the voluntary Australian Wine Industry Code of Conduct, in place since 2009. The Code’s impact has been limited due to the low numbers of winemakers that have signed up.
The ACCC found the Code’s key benefit to growers and winemakers was in providing a structured process for resolving disputes about price and quality assessments of wine grapes. 
However, because many major winemakers are not signatories to the Code, many growers are not able to access its dispute resolution mechanisms.
“The ACCC recommends that Australian winemakers with more than 10,000 tonnes of processing capacity sign the Code,” Mr Keogh said.
“If more big winemakers don’t sign up, a mandatory code may be needed to bring about the required industry reforms.” 
The ACCC is seeking feedback on the interim report by 28 June 2019 and expects to release a final report in September 2019.
The interim report is available at Wine grape market study – June interim report. 
Notes to editors
The ACCC’s market study of the wine grape industry was launched in September 2018, after feedback from 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.
About 1500 growers operate in these regions, which produce approximately two thirds of Australia’s wine grapes.
The ACCC consulted 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.
Market participants and interested parties were invited to share their views about competition and fair trading issues that concerned them.
For further information see Wine grape market study
Release number: 88/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Agriculture

2 April 2019Three container stevedore companies have amended their contracts with land transport businesses after the ACCC raised concerns that certain terms in each of these agreements may be unfair contract terms.  
DP World Australia, Hutchison Ports Australia and Victoria International Container Terminal (VICT) agreed, after the ACCC’s intervention, to remove or amend terms in their standard form contracts that the ACCC considered were likely to be considered “unfair” within the meaning of the Australian Consumer Law.
DP World and Hutchison had contract terms that allowed a stevedore to unilaterally vary terms in the agreements without notice, including fees paid by the land transport operators.
DP World and Hutchison also had terms that limited their liability for loss or damage suffered by the transport businesses, while not offering the transport businesses the same protections. VICT’s contract had a term requiring transport businesses to indemnify VICT for loss or damage, with no reciprocal obligation on VICT.
DP World’s standard agreement also required the transport businesses to pay the stevedore’s legal costs and expenses, in circumstances where such payments would normally be determined by court order.
The three stevedores cooperated with the ACCC’s investigation and agreed to remove or amend the terms. Hutchison has made its commitments in a court enforceable undertaking and will also place a corrective notice on its website and put in place a compliance program.
Those contract terms which previously allowed the stevedore to amend the contract without notice have either been removed, or now require the stevedore to give 30 days’ notice of any changes, including for any price rises.
“Thousands of transport businesses, which have standard form agreements with DP World, Hutchison and VICT, stand to benefit from these changes,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“The handling of containers has a direct bearing on the cost of goods in Australia and the competitiveness of Australian exports, so it is crucial for businesses and consumers that the supply chain operates fairly and efficiently.”
The ACCC launched its investigation in early 2018 following concerns being raised about alleged unfair terms in contracts between container stevedores and land transport operators, such as rail and trucking businesses.
The ACCC’s 2018 Container Stevedore Monitoring Report noted the ACCC was assessing unfair contract terms within the industry. The ACCC has now concluded that assessment.
The court enforceable undertaking given by Hutchison can be found at Hutchison Ports Australia Pty Limited.
Background
More than seven million containers are handled by container stevedores every year, carrying many billions of dollars of goods.
DP World operates container terminals in the ports of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle, and has the greatest share of container stevedoring lifts in Australia, at 2.3 million lifts per year. Hutchison operates container terminals in Brisbane and Sydney, and VICT operates a container terminal in Melbourne.
Release number: 46/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Waterfront & shipping

29 March 2019Much-needed reforms that are underway will help address the dysfunctional state of energy retailing in Australia, but action in other parts of the electricity market would further reduce prices for consumers, the ACCC’s first electricity monitoring report says.
Progress in retail affordability measures
The report, published today, is the first for the ACCC’s new electricity monitoring inquiry. It sets out how the ACCC will monitor the supply of retail and wholesale electricity in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and the ACT. It also summarises developments since the release of the ACCC’s retail electricity pricing inquiry (REPI) final report in June 2018.
“Under this new inquiry, we will be closely monitoring all parts of the supply chain in the electricity sector for the next seven years, in an effort to improve affordability,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“We will be looking at the behaviour of suppliers with the objective of helping consumers access affordable electricity. To this end we will also be monitoring the implementation of the 56 recommendations we made in our REPI report, and the impact they have on the market.”
The ACCC will publish reports at least every six months, and will also release information to the market from time to time. Where appropriate, the ACCC will make recommendations to government(s) to take any proportional and targeted action necessary to remedy failures in the market.
The ACCC welcomes progress on several of its REPI recommendations to improve affordability in the retail electricity market.
“We’re pleased our recommendations for a default offer, common reference bill and reforms to conditional discounts have been adopted by the government. We believe this will bring down prices directly for over half a million consumers on excessive standing offers and, in addition, help other customers to identify a better deal.”
“The ACCC will enforce new provisions limiting excessive standing offers and making advertising clearer,” Mr Sims said.
“Competition and transparency from our inquiry will keep pressure on retailers to continue to offer discounts for customers who are already paying less than the new default market offer.”
“The common reference bill will make comparing offers much easier and enable every electricity customer to identify a better deal,” Mr Sims said.
The continuing confusion in the market about what represents a better deal is illustrated by one example in the report. In one part of Victoria, a household that uses a typical amount of electricity in 2019 will pay $181 more over the year if they sign up for an offer with the highest advertised discount in the market (43 per cent) than if they sign up for the cheapest offer with no advertised discount.
Some retailers advertise high ‘headline’ discounts that are conditional on, for example, the customer paying on time. The report gives an example in which an average household in one part of Victoria would have paid an extra $859 in the year on an advertised 34 per cent discount if they paid their bill a few days late, which is $364 more than the most expensive offer with no discount attached.
Wholesale market changing but more generation capacity needed
The report notes that Australia’s wholesale electricity market prices continue to be high, due to a tightening in supply and demand conditions.
The ACCC recommended as part of its REPI report a targeted underwriting scheme for new investment in generation, which would not underwrite equity but would provide certainty for debt financing. The scheme was designed to facilitate new entrants into the wholesale market for projects that have commitments from customers.
“We believe our proposed underwriting scheme is the most effective way of reducing the impact of wholesale prices on consumers and opening the market to new players,” Mr Sims said.
“We also recommended that acquisition of electricity generators should not be allowed if this would result in the acquirer owning more than 20 per cent of capacity in any market.”
“The ACCC will continue to monitor prices and competition in the wholesale market and will call out any conduct, market failures and barriers to entry that result in higher prices,” Mr Sims said.
Network write-downs would provide savings for consumers
An ACCC recommendation for states that over-invested in publicly owned electricity networks to write down the value of these assets has not yet been acted upon.
The charges that network owners can pass on to retailers and consumers under regulatory rules are influenced by network asset values. The higher the network asset value, the higher the charges network owners can impose. If states agree to write down the value of their network assets, then the network charges that are passed on to consumers will be lower.
“Residential consumers in Queensland, NSW and Tasmania continue to pay an average of $100 more a year because our proposal to write down the value of these assets has not been taken up,” Mr Sims said.
“The ACCC accepts that this proposal would involve a potentially large one-off cost to governments, as significant microeconomic reform often does, but we urge them to consider the continuing benefit to consumers and the economy. Reducing the unnecessarily high cost of electricity would result in increased productivity and growth in the economy.”
Solar subsidies no longer needed
Another recommendation yet to be implemented is for the Commonwealth government to abolish the small-scale renewable energy scheme by 2021, which is expected to cost the average residential customer $36 a year by 2020-21.
“The subsidy for small-scale installations is no longer required given the dramatic fall in the cost of rooftop solar since the start of the scheme in 2011,” Mr Sims said.
“It’s become economic for many households to install solar panels, so there’s no reason why other users should subsidise this.”
Background
On 20 August 2018, the then-treasurer, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, directed the ACCC to hold an inquiry into prices, profits and margins in relation to the supply of electricity in the National Electricity Market.
The Inquiry’s first report is to set out the ‘analytical framework for monitoring and provide information about expectations of market outcomes and market participant behaviour’.
The ACCC must report at least every six months until 2025. Future ACCC electricity monitoring reports will continue to examine Australia’s retail electricity market and the implementation of these reforms, monitor the level and spread of retail electricity prices, costs and profits, and examine advertising practices in the industry and consumer take-up of new offers.
The current inquiry follows the ACCC’s Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry June 2018 report into the supply of retail electricity and the competitiveness of retail electricity prices in the National Electricity Market which contained 56 recommendations.
Release number: 44/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Electricity

29 March 2019The ACCC today published the draft rules for the Consumer Data Right (CDR) and is seeking feedback from consumers, businesses and community organisations.
The CDR will allow consumers to easily obtain access to their banking data and have it transferred to service providers who they trust.
This might, for example, be comparator or switching services, or providers of financial or budgeting advice. While commencing in the banking sector, it will eventually apply across a range of sectors.
The consultation announced today will inform the continued development of the rules and the future Privacy Impact Assessment of the Rules.
“The draft rules for the Consumer Data Right allow companies working in the banking sector to begin planning and move towards the start of the consumer data right in banking, with some greater detail and guidance as to how it will work,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“We also know there are a number of privacy advocates, consumer organisations and others who will be very interested to see these draft rules, and we welcome views.”
The ACCC acknowledges there are a number of matters that need to be finalised before the CDR can begin, including the passage of enabling legislation, but says that consultation on the draft is another step in ensuring that the CDR regulatory framework is best practice.
“We are continuing to work through important issues, such as guidance for potential data recipients on the requirements for accreditation, and the operation of a pilot that is scheduled to begin in July 2019.”  
The draft Consumer Data Right rules can be found here.
Interested parties are invited to make submissions in response to the draft rules by 10 May 2019 via the ACCC’s consultation hub.
Background
The Consumer Data Right is a competition and consumer reform announced by the Australian Government in May 2018. The consumer data right will be implemented first in the banking sector with the energy and telecommunications sectors to follow.
Following the announcement of the reform, the ACCC published a Rules Framework in September 2018 and a Rules Outline in December 2018. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2019 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 13 February 2019.
Release number: 45/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Business
Consumers
Industry
Media
Small business

Topics

Consumer data right

29 March 2019Nearly all businesses removed GST on menstrual products from 1 January 2019, resulting in lower prices, a new report from the ACCC has found.
The ACCC has issued a monitoring report today examining the prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of menstrual products in the feminine hygiene industry in Australia, following a direction from the Treasurer the Hon Josh Frydenberg in November 2018. 
The ACCC welcomes businesses implementing the removal of the GST on time and reflecting this with lower prices.
“The vast majority of retailers sampled were well prepared for the removal of the GST, and reduced retail prices of menstrual products by the expected 9.1 per cent,” ACCC Acting Chair Delia Rickard said.
In conducting the monitoring role, the ACCC observed that:

overall, businesses have done the right thing and the removal of GST from menstrual products has resulted in the expected price reductions for consumers
in a small number of cases, system and human errors caused a few businesses to either remove GST but keep prices unchanged, or fail to remove GST for a short time until the errors were identified.
businesses’ rounding policies, errors in previous pricing and already heavily reduced clearance products would also have reduced the observed shelf price changes in some instances.

“There was no legal requirement for businesses to reduce their prices, but post 1 January 2019 and the GST removal, most consumers would have expected the tax ‘saving’ to result in lower prices,” Ms Rickard added.
The report focuses on retail prices and price displays, and used a combination of complaint data, desktop research, field collection and compulsory information notices to gather relevant information.
The information represented a wide cross-section of the retail market for menstrual products, including online.
The ACCC is also engaging with a small number of online retailers, often based overseas, that may still be charging GST on menstrual products.
“Where retailers made oversights, these were quickly corrected and complaints to the ACCC and the Australian Taxation Office from consumers were extremely low,” Ms Rickard said.
The full report is available on the ACCC website.
Release number: 43/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Pricing

28 March 2019The ACCC will not oppose Knauf’s proposed acquisitions of USG and Armstrong World Industries after accepting a court-enforceable undertaking from Knauf to divest assets.
The ACCC’s review focused on competition for the supply of plasterboard, joint plaster compounds and treatments, metal profiles, fixed and modular suspended ceilings and insulation. 
USG has a presence in Australia through a joint venture with Boral, which competes closely with Knauf and also with Armstrong World Industries. The undertaking requires Knauf to divest USG’s interest in this joint venture, either entirely or just in Australasia, to a buyer approved by the ACCC. If divestiture of the joint venture interest is not achieved within a certain period, Knauf has agreed to divest certain other assets.
“The transactions raised some significant concerns as it would lead to Knauf owning a 50 per cent stake in the joint venture, which is a significant competitor in several markets, including markets with limited alternatives for customers,” ACCC Commissioner Roger Featherston said.
“The proposed divestment has addressed these concerns. Divestment will ensure continued competition for the building products that the parties supply, and we therefore believe that the acquisitions would be unlikely to substantially lessen competition in any market.”
The acquisitions involve global transactions, and each acquisition is subject to review by different international competition agencies.
Further information is available at Gebr. Knauf KG – proposed acquisition of USG Corporation and Armstrong World Industries Pty Ltd.
Background 
Knauf is a manufacturer and supplier of building products, headquartered in Germany. In Australia, it supplies plasterboards and related products such as plaster compounds and metal profiles, fixed and modular suspended ceilings (used in offices and large residential buildings) and insulation products.
USG is a manufacturer and supplier of building products, headquartered in the United States. It has a presence in Australia through its joint venture with Boral. In Australia, it also supplies plasterboards and related products such as plaster compounds and metal profiles, fixed and modular suspended ceilings, and insulation products.
AWI is a manufacturer of ceilings and walls, headquartered in the United States. It supplies modular suspended ceilings in Australia. Unlike Knauf and USG, it does not have any manufacturing facilities in Australia.
Release number: 42/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

27 March 2019The Federal Court has ordered penalties of $900,000 against Amaysim Energy Pty Ltd (trading as Click Energy) for making false or misleading marketing claims about potential discounts and savings available to Victorian and Queensland consumers, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
Between October 2017 and March 2018, Click Energy told consumers in Victoria and South East Queensland they could get discounts of between 7 and 29 per cent under its market energy offers, if they paid their bills on time.
These claims were misleading because the discounts were calculated on Click Energy’s market offer rates, which were higher than Click Energy’s standing offer rates available to all consumers. This meant that the effective discounts were smaller than claimed and, in some cases, consumers effectively received no discount at all.
“Click Energy’s conduct misled consumers into thinking they were getting a significant discount, when in reality these discounts were often much smaller than advertised,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
Between October 2017 and April 2018, Click Energy also told consumers they would save between $84 and $946 if they switched to Click Energy. These claims were misleading as those savings were based on estimated savings for a Click Energy consumer on a market offer if they paid their bill on time, rather than savings a consumer would receive by switching from another provider.
“By making these false claims, Click Energy made consumers think they were better off switching to Click Energy, when the advertised savings had nothing to do with switching, but were savings someone already on a Click Energy plan could get if they paid on time,” Ms Court said.
The Court also held Click Energy had made false or misleading representations to consumers about when the discounts given to customers who paid on time would be applied to their bills, by not adequately disclosing the applicable conditions surrounding the discounts. These included that discounts would apply as a credit on a subsequent bill and that no benefit would be received by paying a final bill on time.  
“This penalty is a strong reminder to all energy retailers that making misleading pricing claims is unacceptable and in breach of the Australian Consumer Law,” Ms Court said.
“The retail electricity market is already too complex and opaque for many households to navigate and get the best deal. Misleading claims like those by Click Energy only make it harder for everyday consumers to make informed choices on a major household expense”.
“Consumer and competition issues arising from opaque and complex pricing of essential services, in particular energy and telecommunications, are a 2019 compliance and enforcement priority for the ACCC,” Ms Court said.
Click Energy was also ordered by the Court to send each affected customer a notice correcting the misleading claims, implement a consumer law compliance program and pay an agreed amount towards the ACCC costs.
Click Energy admitted contravening the Australian Consumer Law, and the Court’s decision on penalty and other relief was based on a statement of agreed facts and submissions filed jointly by Click Energy and the ACCC. 
Background:
The ACCC instituted proceedings against Click Energy in June 2018.
This decision relates only to Click Energy’s promotion of electricity and gas market offers on its website to consumers in South East Queensland and Victoria.
Release number: 38/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Electricity

27 March 2019The ACCC has been awarded the 2019 Government Agency of the Year at the Global Competition Review (GCR) 9th Annual Awards Ceremony hosted in Washington DC tonight (26 March).
“We are honoured that our work has been acknowledged on the global stage, in what has been a year of incredibly hard work for the Commission,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims, who is in Washington this week to speak at the American Bar Association Spring Conference and Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.
“I’m very proud of our teams right across the ACCC for the passion, commitment and innovation they bring to our work. I’m also grateful for the expert and strategic thinking of my fellow Commissioners and the robust decision making processes we have that enable us to take risks and be confident in our decision making.”
The GCR highlighted the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry, its investigation into Google’s restriction on mobile app developer Unlockd, and the complex Nine-Fairfax merger decision. In 2018, the ACCC also took its first gun-jumping case against Cryosite, a stem cell storage company, and reached another milestone in its decade-long price-fixing case against airlines with Air New Zealand being the 14th airline to be fined in those proceedings.
GCR also noted ACCC Chair Rod Sims’ reappointment in 2018 for a further three-year term, saying “he is credited with stewarding the authority’s criminal cartel enforcement work, introduced the year before he started, and the strengthening of Australia’s abuse of dominance law.”
Other nominees in the category included Canada’s Competition Bureau, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office’s Antitrust Division and Portugal’s Competition Authority.
Release number: 39/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917

28 March 2019The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against STA Travel Pty Ltd for allegedly making false or misleading claims in relation to its MultiFLEX Pass product.
STA Travel’s MultiFLEX Pass is marketed as an airfare add-on that, if purchased, purportedly allows the consumer to change the dates of their flights without paying certain, or any, fees or charges.
The ACCC alleges that, since September 2011, STA Travel has misled consumers by representing in advertisements that a customer who changed the date of their flight after purchasing a MultiFLEX Pass would not pay any fees or charges, or would only be charged the difference in the cost of the airfare and applicable taxes.
In fact, it is alleged STA Travel charged many consumers hidden commissions and other fees on top of the difference in airfare and taxes, and in some cases even where there was no difference in airfare and taxes.
“We were particularly concerned about STA Travel’s advertisements because they explicitly said MultiFLEX Pass consumers would avoid fees for date changes,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“Some advertisements, for example, said that the MultiFLEX Pass allowed consumers to purchase date changes ‘upfront’, to ‘prepay’ for date changes, or to make ‘fee free’ or ‘no fee’ date changes.”
“However, we allege that some consumers were paying STA Travel hundreds of dollars in hidden commissions and other fees that they were never told about,” Ms Court said.
“Many consumers who thought they were being prudent by purchasing an add-on to avoid high fees were instead worse off.”
The ACCC alleges that STA Travel has generated revenue of over $12 million from the sale of  MultiFLEX Passes since 2011, and that nearly two thirds of the consumers who used their MultiFLEX Pass to change flights were charged additional commissions or other fees. Additional commissions or other fees totalling more than $1 million were collected by STA Travel since 2011 from consumers using a MultiFLEX Pass to make date changes. 
The ACCC is seeking penalties, injunctions, costs, and other orders against STA Travel.
Background:
STA Travel sold three types of MultiFLEX Passes since at least September 2011:

   the ‘ONEFlex Pass’—costing $49 and allowing one flight change;
   the ‘3 Change Pass’ or ‘Multiflex Pass’—costing $99 and allowing three flight changes; and
   the ‘Unlimited’ or ‘Ultimate’ Change Pass—costing $149 and allowing unlimited flight changes.

More information on false or misleading claims can be found here.
An example of one of the alleged misleading advertisments is below:

Release number: 40/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917

28 March 2019The ACCC will not oppose the proposed acquisition of Xenith IP Group Limited (ASX: XIP) by IPH Limited (ASX: IPH).
IPH and Xenith are holding companies of intellectual property (IP) businesses, and the proposed acquisition would combine two of the largest suppliers of IP services in Australia.
The ACCC’s investigation of this proposed acquisition examined competition in the supply of Australian IP services, such as patents, trademarks, designs and plant breeder’s rights.
“Most customers we consulted did not express concerns,” ACCC Commissioner Roger Featherston said.
“Corporate customers who seek patent services rely on the expertise and infrastructure of large IP firms to handle their work in complex technology areas and to manage their volume of patent filings. The merged IPH-Xenith entity would have a market share of about 40 per cent of total patent filings.”
“We consider that other firms, including subsidiaries of QANTM and several independent firms, would likely provide sufficient competitive constraint on the new entity,” Mr Featherston said.
“Trademark services require less specialist technical expertise than patent services. We believe that other IP firms and commercial law firms provide a competitive constraint because they are a viable alternative.”
“We also have no competition concerns regarding designs services or plant breeder’s rights services,” Mr Featherston said.
On 21 March 2019, the ACCC announced that it would not oppose the proposed merger of QANTM and Xenith.
“The ACCC has assessed QANTM merging with Xenith, and IPH acquiring Xenith as alternatives. Our decisions do not apply to any merger of all three of these ASX-listed IP services groups. Any further consolidation in the IP services industry will require further investigation,” Mr Featherston said.
Further information is available at IPH Limited – proposed acquisition of Xenith IP Group Limited.
Background
Intellectual property services are services associated with the registration, protection, commercialisation, enforcement and management of intellectual property rights.
IPH is an ASX-listed holding company of a group of businesses that supply intellectual property services to Australian and international clients. IPH’s IP businesses include Spruson & Ferguson, Pizzeys and AJ Park.
Xenith is an ASX-listed holding company of a group of businesses that supply intellectual property services to Australian and international clients. In Australia, Xenith’s IP businesses include Griffith Hack, Shelston IP, Watermark Intellectual Property and Glasshouse Advisory.
Release number: 41/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

26 March 2019Gift cards are increasingly the payment method of choice for scammers. Scamwatch reports show more than $5 million was lost in 2018, a 38 per cent increase compared with 2017.
iTunes cards accounted for $3.1 million in losses – a 156 per cent increase from the $1.23 million reported in 2017. However Scamwatch has also seen an increase in reports involving other gift cards such as Google Play,  Amazon, and Steam cards, and Australia Post Load & Go prepaid debit cards.
Losses to scams where non-iTunes gift cards were used as payment increased by 530 per cent in 2018 to around $1 million.
“Scammers like to get gift cards as payment as it’s easy for them to quickly sell them on secondary markets and pocket the cash,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“It’s concerning that the scammers are now demanding payment in other forms of gift cards. This is likely in response to scam warnings about using iTunes cards for paying scammers that are in stores like supermarkets and on the cards themselves.”
“It’s clear the scammers are diversifying their payments to try get around these warnings, so it’s vital people are aware that no legitimate company or government agency will ever ask you to make a payment with any sort of gift card,” Ms Rickard said.  
There are several common types of scams involving gift cards:
ATO impersonation scams

The scammer pretends to be from the Australian Taxation Office and claims there is a warrant for their victim’s arrest. The scammer asks the victim to pay an immediate ‘fine’ using gift cards or bitcoin, and claims police will come and arrest them if not.

Catch-a-hacker scam

The scammer calls and pretends to be from a law-enforcement agency or internet provider and convinces the victim they are trying to trace the location of a hacker who has compromised the victim’s computer. They claim they can do this by sending money from the victim’s bank account or via gift card serial numbers.

Victims are also tricked into giving up personal details with the promise of gift cards. Scammers entice victims to participate in surveys by promising gift cards as a prize, however the surveys extract personal information such as your name, date of birth, address details and even financial details like your credit card or bank numbers.
“If anyone asks for payment using a gift card, it is a scam, simple as that,” Ms Rickard said.
“If you paid a scammer with a gift card, report it as soon as possible. Call the company that issued the gift card and tell them the gift card was used in a scam. It’s very difficult to get your money back but the sooner you report it, the better your chances.”
Businesses that sell iTunes, Google Wallet and similar gift cards are encouraged to inform their staff about these scams so that they can help warn customers.
“If staff are informed they can identify the warning signs of a scam when they notice a customer spending large amounts of money on gift cards,” Ms Rickard said.
People can also make a report on the Scamwatch website, or find more information about where to get help.
Release number: 37/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Scams

21 March 2019The ACCC has accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from jewellery business Pandora to review its consumer rights policies and staff training after Pandora acknowledged it is likely to have contravened the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by making misleading representations to consumers about their consumer guarantee rights.
The ACCC received complaints that Pandora staff told customers seeking redress for faulty products that it did not provide refunds and that Pandora’s warranty policy overrode the consumer guarantees protections under the ACL.
Following an investigation, the ACCC identified that Pandora’s website contained confusing or inaccurate information on consumer guarantee rights under the ACL. It also noted that information on Pandora’s website about its product warranty failed to include mandatory text that states that consumers are entitled to a replacement or repair, and in some cases a refund, if their goods are faulty.  
“Pandora has acknowledged that it may have misled customers about their consumer guarantee rights to refunds when there was a major fault with their product. They also have admitted that by doing so they likely breached the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“Consumer rights to a repair, replacement or refund cannot be excluded, restricted or modified by a business’ warranty policy.”
“If consumers have purchased a product that has a major fault, they can request a full refund from their place of purchase,” Ms Court said.
Pandora has undertaken to arrange for an external review of its policies and procedures relating to exchanges, repairs and refunds, to ensure customer claims for refunds and other remedies are dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the ACL.
Pandora will also conduct a review of its ACL compliance program and improve its staff training and complaints handling systems.
Pandora’s undertaking can be found here. 
Background:
In Australia, Pandora is made up of a network of 143 outlets, most of which are franchisees.
More information on a consumer’s right to a repair, replacement or a refund can be found on the ACCC’s website: Repair, replace, refund.
Release number: 36/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Consumer rights

21 March 2019The ACCC will not oppose the proposed merger between QANTM Intellectual Property Limited (ASX: QIP) and Xenith IP Group Limited (ASX: XIP).
QANTM and Xenith are holding companies of intellectual property (IP) businesses and their merger would combine the second and third largest suppliers of IP services in Australia into one group.
The ACCC’s investigation focussed on competition in the supply of Australian IP services, such as patents, trademarks, designs and plant breeder’s rights.
“We consulted with a large number of market participants and most customers did not express concerns,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“For patent services, corporate customers rely on the expertise and infrastructure of large IP firms, such as those within QANTM and Xenith, to handle their work in complex technology areas and to manage their volume of patent filings. The merged QANTM-Xenith would have a market share of about 30 per cent of total patent filings. However, we found that a number of alternative firms are likely to continue to provide sufficient competitive constraint on the merged entity.”
“Trademark services require less technical expertise than patent services, and therefore we believe several IP firms and commercial law firms are viable alternatives for customers, providing a competitive constraint. We also found no competition concerns in relation to designs services or plant breeder’s rights services.”
The ACCC is also reviewing IPH’s acquisition of a 19.9 per cent interest in Xenith, and its proposal to acquire 100 per cent of Xenith.
“If there are competing proposals to buy a company, the ACCC reviews the proposals separately. This decision on QANTM-Xenith should not be interpreted as suggesting a particular decision in the IPH-Xenith matter, and we have yet to make a decision in the IPH-Xenith matter,” Mr Sims said.
Further information is available at QANTM Intellectual Property Ltd – Xenith IP Group Ltd.
Background
Intellectual property services are services associated with the registration, protection, commercialisation, enforcement and management of intellectual property rights.
QANTM is an ASX-listed holding company of a group of businesses that supply intellectual property services to Australian and international clients. In Australia, QANTM’s IP businesses include Davies Collison Cave and FPA Patent Attorneys.
Xenith is an ASX-listed holding company of a group of businesses that supply intellectual property services to Australian and international clients. In Australia, Xenith’s IP businesses include Griffith Hack, Shelston IP, Watermark Intellectual Property and Glasshouse Advisory.
Release number: 34/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

21 March 2019The ACCC will not oppose Lochard Energy’s proposed acquisition of the Heytesbury depleted gas reservoir assets from Origin Energy.
Lochard owns and operates the underground gas storage facility at Iona, near Port Campbell, which is currently the only underground gas storage facility in Victoria.
The Heytesbury assets are depleted gas reservoirs located near the Iona facility, which may have potential for underground gas storage development. Lochard is paying Origin a nominal amount for the assets.
The ACCC’s investigation focused on competition for the supply of underground gas storage in Victoria and South Australia.
“Lochard has a dominant position in the supply of underground gas storage in southern Australia, however we found that another operator is unlikely to be able to viably develop the Heytesbury assets, due to technical and commercial uncertainties,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“On the other hand, Lochard may have the option to use its existing Iona infrastructure and develop the Heytesbury assets for incremental gas storage.”
“Most customers of underground gas storage services were not concerned about the proposed acquisition,” Mr Sims said.
“We also noted the Golden Beach proposed underground gas storage solution which, if developed, is likely to place competitive constraints on Lochard’s Iona facility,” Mr Sims said.
Further information is available at Lochard Energy – proposed acquisition of the Heytesbury Assets from Origin Energy.
Background
Lochard is an Australian energy infrastructure business. In addition to owning and operating the Iona storage facility, it also provides natural gas processing services.
Origin holds natural gas production, energy retailing and electricity generation businesses. It acquired the Heytesbury assets from Santos in 2004.
Underground gas storage facilities use depleted gas fields and associated above-ground infrastructure to store and withdraw gas. These facilities are generally used to meet seasonal gas demand in southern Australia. They are becoming increasingly important in helping to manage supply risks as reserves in Victorian gas basins decline.
Golden Beach is a gas reservoir located in the offshore Gippsland Basin. It is owned by GB Energy.
Release number: 35/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Energy

15 March 2019The Federal Court has ordered penalties of $250,000 against internet provider Australian Private Networks Pty Ltd (trading as Activ8me) for making false or misleading representations and not displaying a single price when advertising its internet services.
The Court has also ordered that Activ8me offer to refund setup fees and allow affected customers to exit or switch plans without charge.
Activ8me admitted that between June and November 2018, it made false or misleading claims in three direct mail advertisements and five online banner advertisements marketing its Opticomm fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) packages, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
Activ8me told consumers they could access speeds of up to 100Mbps for $59.95 a month with no setup fee. In fact, the $59.95 plan only offered speeds of 12/1Mbps and a set-up fee of $99.95 applied if the consumer did not sign up to a 12-month plan. The true cost of Activ8me’s 100Mbps plan was $89.95 per month.
Activ8me also made a number of other false or misleading claims about price, inclusion of ‘unlimited’ data, speed and total minimum costs.
“The misleading representations by Activ8me were blatantly wrong and misled hundreds of customers into signing up to internet services which were at a different price or speed than they expected” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
Over 81,000 direct mail advertisements were sent to consumers, and 793 customers acquired Activ8me’s Opticomm network FTTP services during the relevant period.
Activ8me will send each affected customer a corrective notice and implement a consumer law compliance program.
“Businesses are warned that misleading customers will result in ACCC action and potentially serious consequences.” Ms Rickard said.
Activ8me admitted contravening the Australian Consumer Law, and the Court’s decision on penalty and other relief was based on a statement of agreed facts and submissions filed jointly by Activ8me and the ACCC. 
Background:
The ACCC instituted proceedings against Activ8me in December 2018.
The ACCC has engaged with Activ8me on two previous occasions in 2018 about its advertising.
On 1 March 2018 Activ8me paid an infringement notice penalty in relation to alleged misrepresentations that its internet services were endorsed by the ACCC.
In July 2018, Activ8me amended its advertising for NBN fixed wireless internet services following ACCC intervention.
Release number: 33/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

13 March 2019The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Country Care), its Managing Director, Robert Hogan, and a former employee, Cameron Harrison, have been committed to stand trial in the Federal Court of Australia on all of the cartel charges laid against them.
This follows a committal hearing held before the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria in Melbourne from 4 to 13 March 2019.
The charges laid against Country Care, Robert Hogan and Cameron Harrison on 14 February 2018 relate to alleged cartel conduct involving assistive technology products used in rehabilitation and aged care, including beds and mattresses, wheelchairs and walking frames. 
The matter will now be heard in the Federal Court of Australia at a later date.
Background
The ACCC investigates cartel conduct, manages the immunity process and, in respect of civil cartel contraventions, takes proceedings in the Federal Court. 
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) is responsible for prosecuting criminal cartel offences in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. The ACCC refers serious cartel conduct to the CDPP for consideration of prosecution in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the CDPP and the ACCC regarding Serious Cartel Conduct. 
Anyone with information about cartel conduct is urged to call the ACCC Cartel Hotline on (02) 9230 3894.
Release number: 31/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Topics

Cartels

14 March 2019There should be a law in Australia prohibiting the sale of unsafe goods, ACCC Chair Rod Sims told the National Consumer Congress in Melbourne today.
Using new data the ACCC estimates the annual cost of injury and death caused by unsafe consumer products is at least $5 billion and could be much more.
Excluding motor vehicle accidents, there are around 780 deaths and around 52,000 injuries per year from consumer products that many Australians have in their homes.
“Many people are surprised to learn that it is not illegal to sell unsafe goods in Australia,” Mr Sims said. 
“There is no law that says goods have to be safe, but there should be.”
Examples of harm include electrocution from faulty appliances, burns from ignited flammable clothing, choking on children’s toys and suffocation in cots and beds.
The ACCC says there is a need for the Government to adopt a General Safety Provision obliging companies to take reasonable steps to avoid supplying unsafe goods.
“For consumers, a General Safety Provision will give greater confidence that the goods they buy are safe. And for business, it will create a level playing field so that those firms who deliberately supply cheap but unsafe products do not derive a financial benefit,” Mr Sims added.
On the eve of World Consumer Rights Day on March 15, the ACCC announced its 2019 Product Safety Priorities, with the Takata airbag recall remaining a primary concern, and a continuation of the ACCC’s work on button battery safety.
‘We are continuing our work in preventing button batteries ending up in the hands of our infants and children,” Mr Sims said.
“Each week too many Australian children present to hospital as a result of button batteries, which can be deadly. This must change.”
Other 2019 ACCC Product Safety Priorities include preventing injury and deaths to infants caused by unsafe sleeping products and improving the safety of products that are sold online.
An additional focus for the ACCC in 2019 will be examining potential consumer safety hazards associated with interconnected and smart devices.
“Our challenge in product safety is to anticipate these future risks before they arise and make sure the regulatory framework is fit for purpose.”
The full list of the ACCC’s 2019 Product Safety Priorities is available at: Product safety priorities
Release number: 32/19ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.

Audience

Industry

Topics

Product Safety