23 November 2020Four of Australia’s largest e-commerce businesses have confirmed their commitment to protecting consumers from unsafe goods online after signing on to a new product safety pledge.
The Australian Product Safety Pledge launched today, is a voluntary initiative that commits its signatories to a range of safety related responsibilities that go beyond what is legally required of them. AliExpress, Amazon Australia, Catch.com.au and eBay Australia, who together account for a significant share of online sales in Australia, are the first businesses to sign the pledge, signifying their commitment to consumers’ safety through a range of commitments such as removing unsafe product listings within two days of being notified by the ACCC.
“This new initiative is an important step forward in ensuring businesses provide consumers with a safe and trusted online shopping experience,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“The already fast growing e-commerce market in Australia has accelerated even more this year, as the pandemic meant people have had to do more of their shopping from home. With the boom in online shopping, it is more important than ever for businesses to prioritise product safety.”
The pledge consists of 12 product safety commitments and three measurable performance indicators, as well as guidance to assist signatories in fulfilling their commitments.
Signatories are required to report on their product safety performance at the end of each financial year to inform an annual public report by the ACCC.
“Improving product safety online is critical to building consumer confidence and trust,” Ms Rickard said.
“E-commerce giants like the four pledge signatories can help keep Australian consumers safe by preventing the sale of unsafe goods across their businesses,” Ms Rickard said.
“We applaud these signatories for signing up to the pledge and for confirming their commitment to protecting Australian consumers. We encourage them to continue to innovate to improve product safety,” Ms Rickard said.
The ACCC will be inviting other online businesses, particularly those facilitating marketplace services to sign the pledge and expects more signatories to join in subsequent years.
Online businesses that are interested in taking the pledge to strengthen their product safety policies are encouraged to visit the Product Safety Australia website for more information.
Background
In 2015, the ACCC led the OECD international online product safety sweep, which found high levels of non-compliance online:

There was a search for 693 banned or recalled products, and just over two-thirds (68 per cent) were found online.
Of the 136 products purchased and physically inspected, over half (54 per cent) did not comply with relevant product safety regulations.

The Australian Product Safety Pledge is the first framework of its kind that the ACCC has developed with the four inaugural signatories. It was modelled on a similar initiative in the European Union that has been successful in removing dangerous products from e-commerce businesses.
The pledge is voluntary and outlines good practice approaches expected of industry. The ACCC encourages online businesses that facilitate the supply of products to Australian consumers to adopt the pledge.
The ACCC supports businesses in their efforts to comply with the pledge by maintaining and updating the Product Safety Australia website, facilitating regular meetings with signatories and sharing information on emerging product safety issues.
Adopting the pledge does not replace the need to ensure overall compliance with the Competition and Consumer Act, including the Australian Consumer Law, or other relevant legislation. It does not prevent the ACCC or other regulatory authorities from taking action against signatories for breaches of the legislation.
In the context of the pledge signatories include, but are not limited to, online businesses that facilitate marketplace services, engaging in business to consumer or consumer to consumer transactions via the internet.
For more information, visit www.productsafety.gov.au/pledge.
Release number: 244/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Product Safety

20 November 2020The Federal Court has found that Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd (Jayco), Australia’s largest caravan and recreational vehicle manufacturer, breached the Australian Consumer Law in its dealings with one consumer who had purchased a Jayco caravan.
The Court found that Jayco made a false or misleading representation that the consumer was only entitled to a repair, when in fact a consumer’s rights under the ACL include a refund or replacement.
The ACCC had alleged that Jayco had acted unconscionably towards four consumers who purchased Jayco caravans, by denying them the right to refunds or replacements for their defective caravans.
The ACCC had also alleged that Jayco made false or misleading representations to the four consumers about their rights to obtain a refund or replacement for their defective caravans.
After finding that Jayco had made false or misleading representations to one consumer, the Court dismissed the remainder of the ACCC’s case, finding that Jayco did not make false or misleading representations to the three other consumers or act unconscionably towards the four consumers.
Despite finding that Jayco did not act unconscionably towards the four consumers, the Court found that the caravans purchased by the consumers were not of acceptable quality, and that defects in three of the caravans were major. In finding that there was a major failure, the Court had regard to the cumulative effect of the defects. Amongst other problems, the caravans experienced either water leaks when it rained or had multiple roof collapses.
“The ACCC took this action because we were concerned that these consumers were being denied remedies available under the Australian Consumer Law, for products that had clear defects,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“These consumers spent tens of thousands of dollars on new Jayco caravans that had defects which caused issues such as roofs collapsing, leaking or not shutting properly.”
“We will carefully consider the judgment,” Mr Sims said.
Background
The ACCC instituted proceedings against Jayco in November 2017.
Consumer Guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law provide remedies for consumers if their product is not of acceptable quality. Consumers can choose to have a product replaced, repaired or refunded if there is a major fault. A retailer can choose the remedy for minor faults.
Further information on consumer guarantees is available at Consumer guarantees.
The ACCC encourages people to use its complaint letter tool to email or write to a business in relation to their rights to a repair, replacement or refund.  
Release number: 243/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

20 November 2020The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd, trading as Peters Ice Cream (Peters), alleging it engaged in conduct which hindered or prevented competition for the supply of single-wrapped ice creams to petrol and convenience retailers.
The ACCC alleges that between about November 2014 and December 2019, Peters engaged in exclusive dealing by entering into and giving effect to an agreement with PFD Food Services Pty Ltd to distribute its single-wrapped ice cream and frozen confectionary products to petrol and convenience retailers nationally. 
The agreement contained a condition that PFD could not distribute any competing ice cream products in certain locations around Australia.
During the term of the distribution agreement, PFD made requests to distribute competing ice cream products to petrol and convenience retailers nationally, but these requests were rejected by Peters.
The ACCC alleges that, for new entrants, PFD was the only distributor capable of distributing single-wrapped ice cream products to national petrol and convenience retailers on a commercially viable basis. Unlike PFD, other potential distributors did not have a national frozen food route to these retailers.
The ACCC will also argue it was not commercially viable for new entrants to incur the cost of establishing their own distribution network to distribute single-wrapped ice creams nationally.
“We allege that, as a result of the agreement and Peters’ conduct, other ice cream suppliers had no commercially viable way of distributing their single serve ice creams to national petrol and convenience retailers,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Our case is that the distribution agreement and Peters’ conduct effectively raised barriers of entry, which hindered or prevented potential new entry into the market to supply single serve ice cream products to petrol and convenience retailers.”
“We also allege that a substantial purpose of Peters engaging in the conduct was to protect its market positon from competitors, as one of only two major suppliers of single-wrapped ice creams, who together held a combined market share of over 95 per cent during the relevant time,” Mr Sims said. 
“We allege that this conduct reduced competition, and may have deprived ice cream lovers of a variety of choice or the benefit of lower prices when purchasing an ice cream at one of these stores,” Mr Sims said.
During the course of the ACCC’s investigation, Peters advised the ACCC, without admission, that it has recently entered into a new agreement with PFD which no longer includes a term restricting PFD from distributing ice cream products for other ice cream producers.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, a compliance program order and costs.
Background
Peters is one of the largest suppliers of single serve ice cream products in Australia, which include brand names such as “Drumstick”, “Maxibon”, “Connoisseur”, “Frosty Fruits” and “BillaBong”.
During the relevant period, Peters directly distributed most of its ice creams to areas in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, while PFD distributed or re-supplied Peters’ ice creams in the majority of other areas.
Exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. Exclusive dealing is against the law only when it has the purpose or effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition.
Release number: 242/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

19 November 2020The ACCC has today granted interim authorisation to Virgin Australia and Alliance Airlines allowing them to cooperate on 41 regional routes and two short-haul international routes.
The ACCC’s preliminary view is that these arrangements are likely to result in a public benefit by assisting in the re-establishment of Virgin Australia’s national network of routes, thereby promoting competition in airline services.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the aviation industry in Australia. This interim authorisation will help facilitate a more competitive aviation landscape as Australian consumers resume travelling and demand for flights increases,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.
The cooperation will allow Virgin Australia and Alliance Airlines to share information, and to agree on service capacity, schedules and potentially revenue sharing on the routes on which they operate, including for new routes not currently serviced by either airline.
“Cooperating to provide services on these regional routes will assist Virgin Australia and Alliance Airlines to efficiently manage capacity and quickly respond to increases in demand as travel restrictions ease,” Mr Ridgeway said.
“We acknowledge there is some urgency to this matter. A delay in Virgin Australia fully re-establishing its network, while other airlines are increasing services in response to greater demand as travel restrictions ease, is likely to result in less competitive markets.”
“This is why we have given this arrangement interim authorisation while we consider the substantive application,” Mr Ridgeway said.
The cooperation will mean that Virgin Australia and Alliance Airlines will not compete with each other on the routes covered by the agreement.
“Our preliminary view is that any public detriment resulting from reduced competition between Alliance Airlines and Virgin Australia is likely to be limited, given Alliance Airlines’ limited number of scheduled regular passenger services. We will consider this issue further in the course of our review of the substantive application,” Mr Ridgeway said.
“We consider that other airlines, including Qantas Airways and Qantas-owned Jetstar, are likely to compete strongly with Alliance Airlines and Virgin Australia on many of the routes covered by the agreement.” 
Having granted interim authorisation, the ACCC is seeking feedback on the substantive application for authorisation. More information, including the list of routes covered by the authorisation, the ACCC’s statement of reasons, and details on how to make a submission are available at Virgin Australia & Alliance Airlines.
Background
Virgin Australia commenced operations in Australia in 2000 and currently operates services on 37 domestic routes from 28 ports.
Alliance Airlines is an Australian airline that provides contract, charter and regular public transport services, and is listed on the ASX.
Airline Competition Taskforce
On 19 June 2020, the ACCC was directed by the Treasurer, The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP to monitor the prices, costs and profits of Australia’s domestic airline industry and provide quarterly reports to inform Government policy.
The direction under Part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act will enable the ACCC to require information from relevant companies. The direction is for three years.
Qantas’s shareholding in Alliance Airlines
On 1 February 2019, Qantas acquired 19.9 per cent of Alliance Airlines. The ACCC has an ongoing investigation into the acquisition.
The ACCC considered the impact of the Qantas’s minority shareholding in Alliance Airlines as part of its assessment of Virgin Australia and Alliance Airlines’ request for interim authorisation.
Notes to editors
ACCC 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.
Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.
The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation.
Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any public detriment.
Release number: 241/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

COVID-19
Authorisations

12 November 2020The number of higher speed broadband services exceeded 5 million for the first time, jumping from 4.9 million to over 5.2 million last quarter, according to the ACCC’s Wholesale Market Indicators Report released today.
As the pandemic continues to increase demand for broadband services, new consumers are continuing to be drawn mainly to the higher speed plans (50Mbps and above). Within this group, the 50Mbps service remains the most popular plan, accounting for 57.5 per cent of all connections.
Recently introduced premium high-speed products (with speeds of 100Mbps and above) have also experienced a jump in popularity. Connections to such services as “Home Fast” (up to 100/20Mbps), “Home Superfast” (250/25Mbps) and “Home Ultrafast” (at least 500/50Mbps), increased rapidly over the quarter from a low base. They still, however, only represent just over 2 per cent of all services.
“It is good to see a continuing increase in the number of products on offer, giving savvy consumers a range of differing plans to choose from,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The reports shows that more than 7.8 million residential customers are already connected to the NBN, after the activation of 387,410 new services in the September 2020 Quarter. However, the number of consumers on 12Mbps or 25Mbps plans rose only slightly, to nearly 2.4 million at the end of September 2020, as the share of consumers on lower speed plans is continuing to decline, now representing 30.4 per cent of all connections.
“It is vital that broadband providers offer a variety of plans for all needs and budgets. Consumers should choose the plan that best works for them, and that doesn’t always mean the fastest,” Mr Sims said.
Telstra continues to dominate the market with 45.7 per cent of all wholesale services acquired from NBN, slightly down on last quarter. TPG Telecom now accounts for 24.4 per cent of all wholesale services following the merger with Vodafone. Optus and Vocus market shares were relatively stable at 15.4 per cent and 7.2 per cent respectively.
Among the smaller players, Aussie Broadband increased its share from 3.5 per cent last quarter to 3.9 per cent in this quarter. Other small access seeker groups accounted for the remaining share of 3.3 per cent.
The number of wholesale providers connecting to all the NBN points of interconnect (POIs) remained stable this quarter, although the consolidation of TPG and Vodafone under one access seeker group means that there are now only 9 wholesale access groups at all 121 POIs, down from the 10 reported at the end of June. There are 10 or more access seeker groups connected at 120 of the POIs.
In addition, total Connectivity Virtual Circuit (CVC), that is the total bandwidth acquired by Retail Service Providers (RSPs), grew by a further 10 per cent to just over 20 Terabits per second.
CVC per user also increased over the quarter from 2.47Mbps to 2.59Mbps, a near five per cent increase since last quarter. The latest CVC figures reflect NBN Co’s extension of its temporary offer of additional 40 per cent CVC capacity to RSPs, at no additional cost, in response to the COVID pandemic.
“It’s important that RSPs continue to acquire sufficient CVC to meet consumer demand, as this affects on user experience. Particularly at this time when Australians’ broadband connection has become a household essential for work, education and entertainment,” Mr Sims said.
Further information, including time series data, is available on the ACCC website at NBN Wholesale Market Indicators.
Background
The ACCC’s Wholesale Market Indicators report contains information on wholesale access services acquired over the NBN.
An NBN wholesale access service is used by an NBN access seeker to supply a retail service to its own customers or, alternatively, to supply a wholesale service to another RSP.
Most small RSPs do not directly connect with NBN Co, instead reselling NBN services acquired from other NBN access seekers (such as Telstra, TPG and Optus).
Change in speed tiers December 2017 to September 2020*

TC4 AVCs

12Mbps

25Mbps

50Mbps

100+Mbps

December 2017

1,022,494

1,884,662

158,959

400,848

Low/high speed

83.8%

16.2%

September 2020

1,089,877

1,290,632

4,498,523

764,164

Low/high speed

30.4%

67.2%

 *excludes NBN ‘Wireless Plus’ services
Release number: 240/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

9 November 2020Simplot Australia Pty Ltd (Simplot) has amended the country of origin labelling on 31 frozen fish products, from ‘Made in Australia’ to ‘Packed in Australia’, following concerns raised by the ACCC.
The frozen fish products were sold under the brand names Birds Eye, I&J, Neptune and one home brand product.
Following compliance checks across a range of frozen foods, the ACCC was concerned that the products displayed a ‘Made in Australia’ mark when the imported frozen fish may not have been substantially transformed in Australia.
Under the Australian Consumer Law’s Country of Origin labelling provisions, if a food product, such as fish, is packed in Australia without being substantially transformed, it cannot display a ‘Made in Australia’ mark.
The products sold by Simplot’s brands used fish imported from a number of countries including New Zealand, United States and South Africa. The ACCC’s view is that only minor manufacturing processes occur in Australia and, when viewed collectively, the imported ingredients do not differ fundamentally from the manufactured goods.
Simplot was of the view that slicing, crumbing and par-frying of the frozen fish constituted substantial transformation, justifying the use of the ‘Made in Australia’ mark.  However, after the ACCC raised its concerns, Simplot agreed to change its country of origin labelling on these frozen fish products.  
“Processes that only change the form or appearance of imported ingredients or components no longer qualify as substantial transformation,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“Country of origin labels are designed to inform consumers, some of whom may be willing to pay a premium for products they think are made in a particular country, especially Australia.”
“Not only can incorrect labelling wrongly influence consumers into purchasing a certain product, it can also give a competitive advantage to those who use the ‘Made in Australia’ label in breach of the Australian Consumer Law,” Mr Keogh said.
“We are pleased that Simplot co-operated with the ACCC investigation and agreed to make changes to its labelling, and on this basis we decided to resolve this matter administratively without taking enforcement action.”
All Simplot frozen fish products manufactured after 31 October 2020 will have the ‘Packed in Australia’ mark but products with the ‘Made in Australia’ mark may still be available in store until sold out.
Background:
Simplot is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States-based company J.R. Simplot and manufactures the following brands of frozen fish brands: Birds Eye, I&J, Neptune, Captain’s Catch and Ocean Royale.
The Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 requires most food suitable for retail sale in Australia to carry country of origin information. Under the Standard, fish is a priority food product.           
If a priority food product is packed in Australia without being substantially transformed, it cannot claim to be of ‘Australian origin’.
In February 2017, the Government passed the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017 amending the definition of ‘substantial transformation’.
Under the definition goods are substantially transformed in a country if:

they were ‘grown’ or ‘produced’ in that country, or
as a result of one or more processes undertaken in that country, the goods are fundamentally different in identity, nature or essential character from all of their imported ingredients or components.

The ACCC has published guidance for businesses making country of origin claims under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
Release number: 239/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

5 November 2020The ACCC has accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from home security provider Tyco Australia Group Pty Ltd, trading as ADT Security, to refund consumers who were wrongly invoiced, and to remove or amend certain unfair contract terms from its residential customer service agreement.
ADT Security has admitted that it is likely to have made false or misleading representations by continuing to invoice residential customers who had terminated their contract for home security services.
Under the agreement, customers were entitled to terminate their contract at the conclusion of the agreements initial term (usually three years) by giving 30 days’ written notice.
ADT Security would not act on this written termination notice until they had spoken to the customer. If they were unable to contact the customer, the company disregarded the notice, treated the agreement as on-going, and continued to supply the service and bill the customer.
“By continuing to invoice customers who had terminated their contract in accordance with their agreement, ADT Security is likely to have made false or misleading representations that ADT had a right to payment for services, when in fact ADT had no such right, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“ADT Security has undertaken to put in place internal processes to commence the 30 day termination notice period as soon as it receives written notice of termination from its customers.”
Customers who in the past two years gave notice in writing to terminate their agreements and whose agreements were not terminated by ADT Security will be contacted by the company to arrange a refund.
The ACCC also had concerns about a number of potentially unfair contract terms contained in the residential customer service agreements.
ADT Security admitted that a clause in the contract which allowed it to vary the agreement during the initial term with one months’ notice was an unfair contract term, and was therefore void. ADT Security has undertaken to remove this term from the agreement.
The company also admitted that a clause permitting it to increase fees 12 months into the standard three year term is also likely to be unfair. ADT Security has undertaken to amend this term.
“We are pleased that ADT Security has also agreed to amend its residential service agreement to address our concerns that some contract terms were unfair,” Ms Court said.
“The contract terms that we were particularly concerned about required customers to either accept a fee increase or other amendment within the initial term, or pay an exit fee for terminating early.”
As well as removing and amending certain contract terms, ADT Security has also undertaken to amend its processes to ensure customers are given information about exit fees and decommissioning costs before entering into agreements.
A copy of the undertaking can be found at: Tyco Australia Group Pty Limited
Notes to editors
Under the Australian Consumer Law there is no prohibition on businesses including or relying on unfair contract terms. Although courts can declare terms to be unfair, with the result that they are void and unenforceable, penalties cannot be imposed on companies using these unfair terms.
Background
ADT Security is a division of Tyco Australia Group Pty Ltd (Tyco) and provides security services to private and commercial clients, including the installation and monitoring of security cameras, home security alarms and smoke alarms.
Release number: 236/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Contracts

5 November 2020The ACCC is investigating acquisitions by Innovation Holdings Australia Pty Ltd. that would provide it with approximately 35 per cent of the shares of iSelect Limited (ASX: ISU).
Innovation Holdings (through its related bodies corporate) owns comparison site comparethemarket.com.au. Compare the Market and iSelect both offer services to consumers that compare various insurance, energy and financial products and services.
Innovation Holdings already owns approximately 29 per cent of the shares of iSelect, which it acquired through a series of acquisitions beginning in 2018. Innovation Holdings now proposes to acquire up to an additional 6 per cent of the shares of iSelect.
“We are considering whether the completed and proposed acquisitions are likely to substantially lessen competition. iSelect is a competitor to Innovation Holdings in offering comparison services for a range of financial and energy products to consumers and minority stakes held between competitors can give rise to competition concerns,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.
Innovation Holdings acquired its current interest in iSelect without prior consultation with the ACCC. The ACCC is accordingly reviewing this matter from an enforcement perspective and has not placed it on the ACCC mergers public register.
“Companies acquiring strategic or potentially controlling stakes in a competitor will continue to attract ACCC scrutiny” Mr Ridgeway said.
The ACCC is inviting submissions from interested parties by 20 November 2020. Submissions should be forwarded electronically (preferably in PDF format) to [email protected] with the title: ‘Submission re: Innovation Holdings / iSelect’.
Background:
Innovation Holdings Australia Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of a group of companies comprising Reef Holdings Limited, Theseus (Monaco) SARL and entities associated with the Global CEO (Mr Stephen Klinkert) and the Group Managing Director and CEO, Asia Pacific (Mr Ram Kangatharan) (IHA Group).
IHA Group owns Compare the Market Pty Ltd. which offers comparisons for a range of insurance, energy and financial products and services, as well as roadside assistance and hotel accommodation through its website www.comparethemarket.com.au.
IHA Group also owns Auto & General Insurance Company Ltd and Auto & General Holdings Pty Ltd (together, Auto & General) which underwrite and distribute home, motor and travel insurance in Australia. Auto & General primarily operates under the brand Budget Direct. Auto & General also underwrites insurance for a number of other brands, including ING, Catch Essentials, Qantas and Virgin Money.
iSelect is an Australian company that offers comparison and purchasing across insurance, utilities and personal finance products from some of Australia’s leading brands.
iSelect owns and operates www.iselect.com.au and www.energywatch.com.au. These two websites compare a wide range of plans and policies including different types of insurance, energy and financial products and services, as well as mobile phone and internet plans.
Release number: 237/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Topics

Mergers

6 November 2020The ACCC is closely watching global anti-trust efforts focusing on major digital platforms, including the US Department of Justice’s recent case against Google and proposed new competition laws in Europe, ACCC Chair Rod Sims said today.
In his annual address to the Law Council of Australia Business Law Section’s Competition and Consumer Workshop, held online, Mr Sims said there was much activity underway in this area.
“The ACCC is focusing on the media bargaining code, our ad tech inquiry and our study examining app stores, and we have noted the Epic Games proceedings against Apple and Google in the US in regards to the latter,” Mr Sims said.
Mr Sims said the growth of the digital platforms had added to the world-wide debate about the adequacy of merger laws, including in Australia. The ACCC would put forward ideas for changes to Australian merger laws in 2021, Mr Sims said.
“These are complex issues, but they matter enormously and, in different ways, they are being considered all over the world,” Mr Sims said.
“The international focus is encouraged by the many acquisitions by the main digital platforms. While the platforms have grown through amazing and beneficial innovation, they are cementing their position through frequent acquisitions,” Mr Sims said.
“We have seen the same in Australia in a range of domestic sectors.”
In his speech, titled “COVID… And So Much More”, Mr Sims said Australia must stop viewing its infrastructure assets as ‘cash cows’ and instead focus on how efficient use of infrastructure can underpin a strong economy.
“When the economic historians look back on the past 20 years they will marvel at how we often privatised so many vital assets to raise money at the clear cost to future users of the relevant assets,” Mr Sims said.
“The community does not, by a large majority, approve of the privatisation of Government assets. They are not luddites. They have simply observed the higher prices that have often been the result.”
Mr Sims said a new “Part IIIB” regime or sector-specific regulation of particular infrastructure assets could address much of the harm that has been caused.
Mr Sims said the ACCC had been busy during the COVID-19 period, including through its role in authorising competitors to cooperate on specific measures during the pandemic, and in dealing with emerging consumer and competition issues.
Despite the pandemic, the ACCC continues to make significant progress in its cartel enforcement work. In addition to securing three convictions, we have had a guilty plea relating to obstruction of an investigation, another matter has been set down for a jury trial, two civil cases are in the Federal Court and a further three are at the committal stage.
“We have an active pipeline, and there are more cartel cases to come, hopefully soon,” Mr Sims said.
“We also have an important array of competition cases. Our case under the new section 46 is before the Federal Court, our NSW Ports case is currently being heard in the Federal court and on 8 December our special leave application will be heard by the High Court for an appeal in relation to the Pacific National/Aurizon section 50 matter.”
Release number: 238/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

4 November 2020The Full Federal Court has dismissed an appeal by hotel comparison site Trivago against an earlier decision which found Trivago had breached the Australian Consumer Law by making misleading representations about hotel room rates on its website and television advertising
In January 2020, the Federal Court had ruled that Trivago had misled consumers by representing its website would quickly and easily help users identify the cheapest rates available for a given hotel.
The judge at first instance had found that Trivago did not sufficiently disclose to users that its website used an algorithm that gave prominence to accommodation providers paying Trivago a higher payment fee (cost per click), meaning that the most prominent offers were often not the cheapest offers for consumers.
The primary judge also found that Trivago misled consumers through the use of strike through prices and text in different colours because Trivago often compared the rate for a standard room with the rate for a luxury room at the same hotel.
Today’s decision by the Full Federal Court upholds the primary judge’s decision that Trivago’s website representations misled consumers.
“This is a win for consumers and is an important warning to comparison sites that they must not mislead consumers about the results they recommend,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“We brought this case because we were concerned that consumers were being misled by Trivago’s claims that their site was getting the best deal for consumers, when in fact they were shown the deals that benefited Trivago.”
“Trivago’s conduct meant that consumers may have paid more for a room at a hotel than they should have, and hotels lost business from direct bookings despite offering a cheaper prices,” Mr Sims said.
The matter will now return to the primary judge, who will consider the orders sought by the ACCC against Trivago at a later date. The ACCC is seeking orders for declarations, injunctions, penalties and costs.
Background
Trivago’s website aggregates deals offered by online hotel booking sites (like Expedia, Hotels.com and Booking.com) and hotel proprietors’ own websites for available rooms at a hotel and highlights one offer out of all online hotel booking sites (referred to as the ‘Top Position Offer’). However, Trivago’s own data showed that higher-priced room rates were selected as the Top Position Offer over alternative lower-priced offers in 66.8 per cent of listings.
Trivago’s revenue was primarily obtained from cost-per-click (CPC) payments from online hotel booking sites, which significantly affected that booking site’s appearance and prominence in search results.
In August 2018 the ACCC instituted proceedings against Trivago and in January 2020, the Federal Court found Trivago had breached the Australian Consumer Law when it made misleading representations about hotel room rates on its website and television advertising.
In March 2020, Trivago appealed the Court’s decision.
 
The following is an example of Trivago’s online price display taken on 1 April, 2018. For example, the $299 deal is highlighted below, when a cheaper deal was available if a consumer clicked “More deals” (underneath the offers from other booking sites in the middle panel).

A sample of Trivago’s TV advertisement as at 24 December 2017 is below.

Release number: 235/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

4 November 2020South Pacific Laundry (SPL) has withdrawn its request for merger clearance of its proposed acquisition of Spotless Laundries after it decided not to proceed with the transaction.
Spotless Laundries is part of Spotless Group Holdings Limited which is wholly-owned by Downer EDI Limited (ASX:DOW).
Spotless Laundries and SPL both offer commercial laundry services in multiple cities and regions across Australia.
The ACCC began its informal merger review on 11 May 2020 and expressed preliminary concerns about the transaction on 27 August 2020.
The ACCC’s investigation indicated that Spotless Laundries and SPL were two of the largest commercial laundry suppliers nationally and in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and Melbourne.
Background
SPL and Spotless Laundries both provide hiring, cleaning and delivery services for linen and garments in multiple regions across Australia.
SPL is owned by Australian private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners.
The ACCC’s Statement of Issues is available on our public register.
The ACCC also considered a separate bid by Alsco Pty Ltd to acquire Spotless Laundries’ garment business until Alsco Pty Ltd withdrew its bid on 22 October 2020. Further information is available at Alsco Pty Ltd – Spotless’ garment business.
Release number: 233/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Topics

Mergers

4 November 2020Stevedores’ revenues and profit margins increased overall in the last financial year despite the global pandemic causing the largest contraction in container volumes in a decade, according to the ACCC’s Container Stevedoring Monitoring Report 2019‑20.
Overall revenues grew in 2019-20, largely as a result of stevedores increasing terminal access charges. Revenue from these charges, previously called infrastructure charges, rose by 51.9 per cent in aggregate for monitored ports compared to 2018-19.
“While there may be justification for landside charges, excessive terminal access charges will nullify the benefits of greater competition between stevedores in providing services to shipping lines. However, any regulation of these charges is a matter for state and territory governments,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.  
“Shipping lines contract with a single stevedore for cargo and that means there is no direct competition in the provision of landside services. This makes these fees to some extent a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition for importers or exporters that have no direct choice of stevedore.”
Stevedores’ total operating profit margins increased for the first time in a decade, from 5.8 per cent in 2018-19 to 9.9 per cent in 2019-20. While profitability varies significantly between stevedores, this is the highest overall margin recorded since 2016-17.
The report shows that revenues and profits increased, even though total container lifts through monitored ports fell by 4.4 per cent largely due to the impact of COVID-19 in the second half of the 2019-20 monitoring period.
There was capital investment in some areas in 2019-20, as the Port of Melbourne committed $125 million to the Port Rail Transformation Project and Patrick invested $150 million across all of its terminals.
The ACCC is aware of a range of issues affecting container ports recently, including industrial action and issues with capacity at empty container parks, particularly in Sydney.
Some shipping lines are imposing new congestion charges of up to US$350 per standard container at Port Botany in Sydney. Some shipping lines are even delivering cargo to other ports such as Brisbane or Melbourne and charging importers to have them trucked to Sydney.
“Congestion charges should be temporary and only imposed if justified and reasonable. We would be very concerned if they became embedded costs at our ports,” Mr Sims said.
Total revenues in real terms: 2010–11 to 2019–20

Note: TACs have been collected by container stevedores at some ports since 2011–12 and aggregated under landside and other revenues until 2016-17. Real values in 2019–20 dollars.
Note to editors
Landside charges are earned from services such as receiving and delivering containers, terminal access charges, temporary container storage, reefer monitoring, hazardous container handling, and other miscellaneous terminal services.
Terminal access charges (TACs), previously known as infrastructure charges, are collected by stevedores from land transport operators when collecting or delivering laden (i.e. not empty) containers.
Background
The ACCC has monitored the container stevedoring industry since 1998-99 under a direction from the Australian Government.
Container stevedoring involves lifting containers on and off ships. The ACCC currently monitors the prices, costs and profits of container stevedores at five Australian container ports: Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney.
The container stevedores are a key part of the Australian economy, transporting billions of dollars of goods through the ports on their way to households and businesses, as well as from exporters to international markets. When the supply chain works efficiently, it brings goods to Australian businesses and consumers at the lowest possible cost and helps to ensure the competitiveness of our exports.
Release number: 234/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Waterfront & shipping

4 November 2020Lower entry-level prices and other proposed improvements to NBN wholesale arrangements are in the long term interests of Australian broadband customers, the ACCC has concluded in a report released today.
NBN Co has agreed to implement these pricing and service standard improvements as part of its next Wholesale Broadband Agreement (WBA4).
“These improvements represent significant change from what was originally on offer when the ACCC’s access determination process started,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The final report for the ACCC’s NBN Access Pricing and Wholesale Service Standards inquiries finds these new arrangements will promote the long term interests of broadband consumers, and balance the competing business interests of NBN Co with those of NBN access seekers.
“These new arrangements will allow for more affordable entry level products for consumers who are happy with pre-NBN speeds, and promote competitive prices for the higher speeds made possible by the NBN,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Higher rebates for consumers will provide stronger incentives for NBN Co to meet reasonable service standards and address individual cases of poor service outcomes,” Mr Sims said.
NBN Co will implement the measures through its wholesale commercial agreements with NBN access seekers, which either sell NBN services directly to consumers or on-sell them to other retail service providers.
The measures agreed to by NBN Co include:

further reductions in the price of NBN Co’s entry-level access bundle
greater product and pricing certainty through additional protections against the withdrawal of bundle access products, and price caps and minimum CVC allowances
stronger and more effective wholesale service standards that include rebates that accrue on a daily basis for late connections and fault rectifications
higher rebates for missed appointments
improved commitments and information on service speed performance, and
extension of rebates to TC-2 services for small-medium businesses.

“We expect the NBN Co’s commitment to provide certainty over access charges, which are the most significant costs facing retailers, will reduce barriers to entry and encourage greater competition in retail markets,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC’s report found that NBN Co’s commitment to include these measures in its next wholesale broadband agreement meant regulatory action through a Final Access Determination is not required at this stage.
“We will be watching NBN Co’s implementation of these arrangements very closely to ensure these measures achieve their intended objectives. This will also inform our consideration of arrangements beyond the term of the next wholesale agreement,” Mr Sims said.
“It is important to note that the revised access arrangements do not provide a direct prohibition on NBN Co effectively reverting to a heavy reliance on short term discounts in future. The underlying concerns we have previously stated on the use of discounts remains and is contrary to the initial intention of the Special Access Undertaking (SAU), which was intended to provide a high degree of long term certainty,” Mr Sims said.
The final report released today concludes the NBN Wholesale Service Standards Inquiry and the NBN Access Pricing Inquiry, which the ACCC has been conducting since 2017 and 2019 respectively.
Background
The ACCC has powers under Part XIC of the Competition and Consumer Act (2010) to make regulated terms and conditions of access to NBN services to promote the long-term interests of end users. NBN services are declared services.
The inquiries were conducted under Part 25 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.
The next wholesale broadband agreement, WBA4, will come into effect from 1 December once access seekers sign and will operate until the end of 2022.
 
Release number: 232/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

2 November 2020Over 90,000 cars with deadly Takata airbags are still on Australian roads according to the ACCC’s latest quarterly update, and more than half of these are located in just three of Australia’s largest capital cities.
New figures which highlight the locations with the most airbags yet to be replaced, show over 46,000 of the remaining cars nationally are in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, particularly in the outer suburbs. There also significant numbers of outstanding airbags across the other capital cities.
“These airbags are very dangerous and have the potential to explode with too much force, even in minor accidents, sending sharp metal fragments into the vehicle at high speed, potentially killing or seriously injuring its occupants,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
There have been more than 330 injuries and 30 deaths reported worldwide, with one death and three injuries in Australia, including one serious injury.  
Under the recall, owners are entitled to have their faulty Takata airbags replaced free of charge. Owners should check if their airbag is affected by entering their number plate and state or territory at ismyairbagsafe.com.au, or by texting ‘TAKATA’ to 0487 AIRBAG (247 224).
While more than 3.7 million affected airbags have already been replaced in 2.71 million Australian vehicles, there are still over 107,000 airbags in more than 90,000 cars remaining.
“We are concerned about the disproportionate number of outstanding airbags in some communities, including those from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, where there has been less take up of the free replacement service,” Ms Rickard said.
“Manufacturers have found it difficult to reach owners in these communities who may not have been as responsive to the warnings and notices sent to them, calls, text messages or in the case of critical vehicles, in person visits, urging them to get their airbags replaced.”
The ACCC has been working to raise awareness and educate consumers across a range of communities to check to make sure their car is not under recall.
“It is important that we all help spread the word. Talk to your friends and family about the recall and offer to help them check their car,” Ms Rickard said.
“It takes less than a minute and together by getting the airbag replaced, we can help reduce the number of dangerous airbags in cars on our roads,”
“Anyone whose car is subject to the recall should not delay and contact a dealership to book their car in urgently for a free airbag replacement.”
“A number of state and territory registration authorities are also imposing registration sanctions in relation to vehicles affected by the compulsory recall. If you don’t act now, registration of your vehicle could be at risk,” Ms Rickard said.
Additionally, many areas still have multiple vehicles which contain a more dangerous, ‘critical’ type airbag on the roads. Nationally, there are more than 6,200 vehicles which contain critical (both alpha and non-alpha) airbags awaiting urgent replacement.
“Vehicles which contain a ‘critical’ airbag should not be driven at all. Contact the manufacturer to arrange for it to be towed or a technician to be sent to you so the airbag can be replaced,” Ms Rickard said.
Consumers who are required to leave their vehicle with the manufacturer for more than 24 hours to have the airbag replaced may be entitled to a free loan car or have their transport costs covered for the period they are without their vehicle.
Consumers can visit ismyairbagsafe.com.au, the Product Safety Australia page, or contact their manufacturer to check if their vehicle is affected. A list of vehicle manufacturer helplines and contact details is available online. 
More information and statistics on individual states is available at: Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
Facts and figures

In total, 3.7 million (89.9%) of airbags have been replaced in 2.71 million (88.6%) of vehicles.
This does not include the 306,909 (7.5%) of airbags in 258,518 (8.4%) of vehicles that manufacturers have deemed as written-off, unregistered for more than two consecutive years, stolen or modified, or where the owner was unable to be contacted or did not respond to recall notifications.
There are 107,329 (2.6%) of airbags remaining for replacement in 90,898 (3%) of vehicles.
There are 5,654 vehicles containing critical non-alpha airbags, and 552 vehicles containing alpha airbags.
Since the recall began, around 60,000 airbags have been replaced on average each month.

Australian capital cities and states with airbags to be replaced as at 30 September 2020

Region

Vehicles Repaired

Vehicles to be Repaired

 
 

Capital cities

States

Greater Melbourne

525,215

21,145

VIC: 26,262

Greater Sydney

508,460

17,550

NSW: 26,197

Brisbane

260,691

8,032

QLD: 15,912

Perth

223,699

6,189

WA: 7,919

Adelaide

139,457

3,234

SA: 3,995

Canberra including Queanbeyan*

55,718

1,827

ACT: 1,704

Hobart

25,541

797

TAS: 1899

Darwin

11,170

380

NT: 711

Other^

 

 

6,299

Australia

 

 

90,898

*Queanbeyan postcode figures are not included in ACT totals, only for Canberra postcode data
^Manufacturers are working to determine where these vehicles are and if they are still on the road.
Notes to editors

The Takata airbag recall is the world’s largest automotive recall, affecting an estimated 100 million vehicles globally.
It is the most significant compulsory recall in Australia’s history, with over four million affected Takata airbag inflators and involving more than three million vehicle recalls.
Takata airbags affected by the compulsory recall use a chemical called phase-stabilised ammonium nitrate (PSAN). The ACCC’s investigation concluded that certain types of Takata PSAN airbags have a design defect. The defect may cause the airbag to deploy with too much explosive force so that sharp metal fragments shoot out and hit vehicle occupants, potentially injuring or killing them.
Vehicle manufacturers are required to ensure all cars with affected Takata airbags have their airbags replaced by 31 December 2020 or provide adequate evidence to the ACCC to satisfy deemed compliance requirements.
Deemed compliance applies to unresponsive or uncontactable consumers where supplier communication obligations have been met, cars unregistered for two years or more, or those that are written-off, exported or stolen.
Manufacturers have ongoing obligations to replace outstanding inflators where they have not achieved 100 per cent actual replacement. Manufacturers must also retrieve spare parts when notified. This obligation extends beyond 31 December 2020 until 100 per cent actual completion is achieved.   
In addition to the compulsory recall of vehicles fitted with Takata PSAN airbags, eight vehicle manufacturers have also issued voluntary recalls for some vehicles manufactured between 1996 and 2000, which may have been fitted with a different type of faulty Takata airbag, being a NADI airbag. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications monitors the NADI voluntary recalls.

Release number: 231/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Product Safety

29 October 2020EZ Smile Pty Ltd has paid a penalty of $12,600 after the ACCC issued an infringement notice for an alleged false or misleading representation made on EZ Smile’s website in relation to the involvement of Australian orthodontists in its teeth straightening services.
EZ Smile offers teeth straightening services using clear dental aligners, which it sells direct to consumers through its website.
The ACCC alleges that EZ Smile made a false or misleading representation on its website that its teeth straightening treatment plans were supplied by dental professionals, including orthodontists who were registered in Australia, or otherwise subject to Australian health regulation standards, when that was not the case. EZ Smiles’ clear dental aligners are in fact manufactured in China.
The statements on the website included ‘EZ SMILE PTY LTD is an Australian based cosmetic teeth straightening company based in Sydney, Australia’ ‘the orthodontists in our lab will need to take a closer look at your teeth …’ and ‘your aligners are made in our clinical lab by experienced orthodontic professionals’.
“We allege this representation was likely to mislead consumers and limit the extent to which they could make a fully informed decision about using EZ Smile’s services,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“This is a relatively new market, and this enforcement action and resulting penalty should serve as a warning to other businesses in this market that it is unacceptable to mislead consumers.”
EZ Smile removed the statements on its website in April 2020.
Background:
EZ Smile participates in an emerging market where clear dental aligners are supplied directly to consumers without the requirement for face to face consultation with a dentist or orthodontist.
Notes to editors:
The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
The ACCC can issue an infringement notice when it has reasonable grounds to believe a person or business has contravened certain consumer protection laws.
Release number: 229/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Advertising
Competition and Consumer Act 2010

29 October 2020The ACCC has lodged an appeal against the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss its case against Employsure, in which the ACCC alleged that Employsure’s Google Ads misrepresented that Employsure was, or was affiliated with, a government agency.
Employsure is a commercial business that offers employment relations advice to businesses, and earns fees from customers signed up to contracts for advice.  
The Google Ads which appeared in response to search terms used by small businesses, such as ‘fair work ombudsman’, featured headlines including ‘Fair Work Ombudsman Help – Free 24/7 Employer Advice’ and ‘Fair Work Commission Advice – Free Employer Advice’.
On 1 October 2020, the Federal Court found that the Google Ads were not misleading. The trial judge concluded it would be clear to a reasonable business owner that the search results were ads and not affiliated with the government, because they were marked with the word ‘Ad’ and linked to a ‘.com’, not ‘.gov’, URL. The Court also found that the words ‘fair work’ had a broad descriptive meaning and were not limited to government agencies.
“We have appealed this decision because we believe the judge made an error in finding that reasonable business consumers, including smaller and less sophisticated business owners, would not have been misled by the Google Ads,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
“Employsure’s ads appeared when business consumers searched for ‘fair work ombudsman’ and ‘fair work australia helpline’. The ACCC considers that many businesses were likely to have conducted their searches when they were seeking urgent workplace advice from a government agency and, we will argue, many reasonable business consumers, including small businesses and less sophisticated business owners, were unlikely to have noted the small differences within the ads which were relied on by the judge to make his findings.”
Background
Employsure is a private company that offers employment relations and workplace health and safety advisory services to business owners. It has no affiliation with any government agency. 
The ACCC instituted proceedings against Employsure in December 2018 which were dismissed by the Federal Court in October 2020.
Examples of the Google Ads run by Employsure

Release number: 230/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

27 October 2020The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against AA Machinery Pty Ltd (trading as Agrison), alleging it made false or misleading representations about the warranties and after-sales services available to its customers, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
It is alleged that from at least August 2017, Agrison has represented on its website and in print and social media that its tractors would be fully supported by a five-year nationwide warranty, a national after-sales service network and access to spare parts, and that Agrison would provide timely after-sales service to customers if problems occurred.
The ACCC alleges that customers who sought assistance from Agrison after experiencing problems with their Agrison tractors found that the company did not have a service network available to provide after-sales service or repairs throughout Australia, the warranty was a limited “parts only” warranty, and that spare parts were not available in a reasonable time frame or at all.
A number of Agrison customers complained to the ACCC that their machinery had serious defects, such as brakes failing and hydraulic systems leaking or not working, which they were unable to get repaired by Agrison. They were also unable to get the correct spare parts to repair their machinery, and these issues were not resolved when the customers raised them with Agrison. 
“Tractors can be a substantial expense for farmers, so it’s important they work properly and that the promised level of support is available when they break down,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“We allege that, when deciding to make the significant purchase of an Agrison tractor, consumers may have taken into account the false or misleading claims Agrison made regarding the warranty offered and the availability of service, repairs and spare parts.”
“All businesses are reminded that they must not make misleading claims about the availability of spare parts, or the effect of any warranty,”  Mr Keogh said.
The ACCC is seeking orders including declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, and costs.
Background
Agrison is a Victorian based business, operating at a single location, which sells and delivers tractors nationally. It supplies a range of agricultural equipment to Australian consumers, including several models of Agrison branded tractors and wheel loaders, ranging in price from $18,000 to $60,000.
Under the Australian Consumer Law, corporations must not make false or misleading representations about the availability of spare parts or the nature of a warranty.
Release number: 228/90ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

26 October 2020The ACCC is urging parents and carers to be aware of the serious risks associated with button batteries, as it launches its ‘Tiny batteries, Big danger’ safety campaign today.
In Australia, one child a month is seriously injured after swallowing or inserting a button battery, with some of them sustaining lifelong injuries. In Australia and globally, there is a growing record of injuries and deaths from button batteries.
Button batteries are flat, round batteries with diameters up to 32mm and heights ranging from 1-11mm. They are found in a surprising number of common household items such as toys, remote controls, watches, digital kitchen scales, thermometers and hearing aids.
“Button batteries can be incredibly dangerous, especially for children five years of age and under,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“If swallowed, a button battery can get stuck in a child’s throat and cause a chemical reaction that burns through tissue, causing death or serious injury.”
“They are tiny, shiny and similar in size to some lollies, making them very attractive to young children,” Ms Rickard said.
The ACCC is currently finalising regulatory options to address the dangers of button batteries before making a final recommendation to the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Michael Sukkar later this year. 
“Button batteries are used in a wide variety of general consumer products, which is why we are looking at broad solutions,” Ms Rickard said.
The ACCC is also concerned about reports wristbands containing two lithium button batteries were offered to the crowd of 30,000 at the Gabba during the AFL Grand Final on Saturday. There are early reports the button batteries are not properly secured. These reports demonstrate the ease with which children can access these dangerous batteries.
The ACCC is currently investigating these reports and advises anyone who received these wristbands to immediately dispose of them, without exposing the batteries, which can be extremely harmful to children. If the mandatory proposed standard being proposed by the ACCC becomes law, supply of these types of products would be an offence.
The ACCC’s safety campaign includes a short video voiced by a child actor, describing the dangers of button batteries and explaining the importance of parents and carers keeping them away from children.
The safety risk to children from these tiny batteries arises when they can get access to them.
“Many parents, carers and grandparents are not aware of the number of products in their homes with button batteries, and they often may not be aware when their child has swallowed one. It is also very hard for health professionals to detect when a child has swallowed a battery as symptoms are similar to other conditions,” Ms Rickard said.
“That’s why we’ve launched this campaign, to help parents and other carers understand the dangers of button batteries and how to create a safer home environment.”
“If a product in your home must use a button battery, ensure the battery compartment is secured, for example with a screw, and that the battery is not accessible to a child,” Ms Rickard said.
“It is also important to remind grandparents, other family friends or carers of the dangers of button batteries and ensure other places the children go to are safe and secure too.”
More information on button battery safety is available on the Product Safety Australia website.
Tips for parents and carers

If you think a child has swallowed or inserted a button battery, contact the Poisons Information Centre on 13 11 26 for 24/7 fast, expert advice. You will be directed to an appropriate medical facility that can manage the injury. Prompt action is critical. Do not wait for symptoms to develop.
Symptoms may include gagging or choking, drooling, chest pain (grunting), coughing or noisy breathing, food refusal, black or red bowel motions, nose bleeds, spitting blood or blood-stained saliva, unexplained vomiting, fever, abdominal pain or general discomfort.
Children are often unable to effectively communicate that they have swallowed or inserted a button battery and may have no symptoms. If you suspect a child has swallowed or inserted a button battery, you should ask for an x-ray from a hospital emergency department to make sure.
Keep new and used button batteries out of sight and out of reach of small children at all times – even old or spent button batteries can retain enough charge to cause life-threatening injuries.
If buying a toy, household device or novelty item, look for products that do not use button batteries at all, such as products powered by other types of batteries or rechargeable products that do not need button batteries to be replaced.
Examine products and make sure the compartment that houses the button battery is child-resistant, such as being secured with a screw. Check the product does not release the battery and it is difficult for a child to access. If the battery compartment does not close securely, stop using the product and keep it away from children.
Dispose of used button batteries immediately. As soon as you have finished using a button battery, put sticky tape around both sides of the battery and dispose of immediately in an outside bin, out of reach of children, or recycle safely.
Tell others about the risk associated with button batteries and how to keep their children safe.

Background:
In March 2019, then assistant treasurer, the Hon. Stuart Robert issued a Safety Warning Notice about the dangers of button batteries and asked the ACCC to expedite the regulatory impact assessment process for developing regulation to address button battery safety.
The ACCC established a Button Battery taskforce in July 2019, and in August 2019, released a Button battery safety issues paper which sought stakeholder feedback.
In March 2020, the ACCC released the Button battery safety – Assessment of regulatory options – consultation paper for public consultation.
The ACCC is currently finalising regulatory options to address the dangers of button batteries which it will provide to Government this year.
Release number: 226/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Product Safety

26 October 2020Australians have lost over $8.8 million to threat based scams so far this year, and young people are reporting the highest losses.
Threat based scammers often pretend to be from government departments and rely on fear, intimidation and people’s instinct to comply with authority, to scam victims. These scams are mainly phone-based and impersonate various officials, such as police, ATO officers or government investigators.
People aged 24 and under reported losing more than $4.1 million to threat based scams and women reported losses three times higher than men.
“It is extremely concerning that young people are being so severely emotionally and financially impacted by threat based scams,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“These losses can be devastating and they can also lead to a loss of trust in authority, meaning victims of threat based scams may be less likely to seek help or advice from legitimate agencies in the future.”
So far this year Scamwatch has received over 18,000 reports of these scams, an increase of 40 per cent compared to reports across all of 2019. 
Chinese authority scams comprised 74 per cent of all losses to threat based scams, over $6.5 million. These scams target Mandarin-speakers in Australian and impersonate authorities such as the Chinese embassy, police or other government officials.
“Threat based scams disproportionately impact people with English as a second language, including foreign students, who may not fully understand Australian law,” Ms Rickard said.
“Victims will often provide personal information to scammers, as they believe they are dealing with a government agency, and this can lead to identity theft or falling victim to further scams.”
Scamwatch has recorded an increase in robo-calls impersonating government agencies, such as the Department of Home Affairs or Services Australia, which claim the victim is under investigation and to ‘Dial 1’ to speak to an investigator.
“Government departments will never send pre-recorded messages to your phone or threaten you with immediate arrest,” Ms Rickard said.  
“If you’re not sure whether a call is legitimate, hang up and call the organisation directly by finding their details through an independent search.”
“Never send money or give credit card details or personal information to anyone you don’t know or trust and never by email or over the phone.”
More information on scams is available on the Scamwatch website, including how to make a report and where to get help.
Consumers can also download the ACCC’s Little Black Book of Scams, which has been translated into 10 languages.  
You can follow @scamwatch_gov on Twitter and subscribe to Scamwatch radar alerts.
Background:
If the scammer impersonated a government agency, contact the agency by sourcing the number from an independent search and report the scam to them. 
If you have experienced fraud or theft or the scammer is impersonating the police, contact your local police or crime stoppers on 1800 333 000.
IDCARE is a free government-funded service which works with victims of identity theft to develop a specific response plan and support them throughout the process. You can phone them on 1300 IDCARE (432273) or visit their website www.idcare.org.
 
Release number: 227/90ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Scams

23 October 2020The price of wholesale transmission services in many regional and rural parts of Australia will fall substantially following the ACCC’s decision to reduce the regulated prices for the declared Domestic Transmission Capacity Service (DTCS).
The wholesale transmission service underpins many communications services that consumers rely on, including mobile and broadband services. The ACCC regulates transmission services in areas where there is little competition between transmission providers or limited infrastructure.
“We expect these lower prices will promote competition in downstream retail markets which will lead to lower prices as well as new, innovative services for consumers,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The ACCC’s 2020 DTCS final access determination (FAD) sets pricing which is significantly lower than the previous regulated prices. For example, regulated prices for high capacity services will be 60 per cent lower than the previous FAD. Low capacity services have fallen by 35 per cent.
“The downward trend in commercial transmission prices has continued over the past five years, which is reflected in the lower regulated DTCS pricing,” Mr Sims said.
The prices set out in the FAD are based on a benchmarking model developed by the ACCC in 2016, which uses transmission prices on competitive routes to determine appropriate prices on regulated routes. The 2020 FAD reflects the overall decline in prices since 2016.
The new FAD also takes into account the higher costs and risk for providing undersea cable services to Tasmania and Christmas Island.
“It is important that regulated prices reflect, and allow for, the recovery of these costs, but still promote competition,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC has provided a calculator on its website to assist access seekers and providers calculate regulated prices for declared DTCS routes. The prices for the DTCS will apply until 31 March 2025.
The ACCC’s final decision and related materials are available at Domestic transmission capacity service final access determination inquiry 2019-2020.
Background
Transmission, often referred to as backhaul, is a high capacity wholesale service used by telecommunications companies to carry large volumes of data between locations where they do not have their own infrastructure. The DTCS is the regulated transmission service.
While there is a lot of competition on transmission routes between capital cities and in metropolitan areas, the ACCC regulates transmission on routes in regional and outer metropolitan areas where there is insufficient competition.
The last pricing decision was in 2016. Since then, commercial prices have fallen considerably which is reflected in the revised pricing.
The FAD prices are a fall-back option if access seekers and access providers are unable to reach commercial agreement. In that sense they act as a reference price for commercial negotiations. The FAD also includes standard non-price terms and conditions of access.  
Release number: 225/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Communications