2 October 2020The price of wholesale mobile voice services will drop following the ACCC’s decision to reduce the price of Australia’s domestic Mobile Terminating Access Service (MTAS) from the current rate of 1.7 cents per minute to 1.19 cents per minute from 1 January 2021.
The reduction in the price paid by a telecommunications network operator to a mobile network operator for connecting calls is the final determination from the ACCC’s public inquiry into the terms and conditions on which the mobile network operators must provide the MTAS.
“Mobile network operators will be required to charge less for providing the MTAS and that enables providers who rely on the MTAS to pass on the savings in their retail offers to consumers,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The MTAS is an essential wholesale service that allows consumers on different mobile networks to make calls to each other, and for consumers on a landline to call another on a mobile network. The regulation of this service requires mobile network operators to connect or ‘terminate’ calls from other networks.
“Mobile network operators upgrade their network technology regularly leading to reduced costs, including the cost of the MTAS. We are expecting them to pass on their gains from more efficient technologies to consumers,” Mr Sims said.
Mr Sims said the shutdown of 2G networks prior to 2019 has been a major driver in the reduction in the cost of the MTAS in Australia.
“We recognise there are retail plans which allow you to make unlimited calls but our inquiry found that a significant portion of consumers heavily rely on voice calls and still pay very high usage charges. These consumers will benefit most from this decision,” Mr Sims said.
The new MTAS price reflects the estimated unit cost of the service. The MTAS will retain the current non-price terms and conditions.
More information on the MTAS and the ACCC’s final report on the inquiry is available at: Mobile Terminating Access Service access determination inquiry – 2019.
Background
The MTAS is a wholesale service which mobile network operators provide to each other and fixed line network operators to connect or ‘termination’ calls made to their networks. The network originating the call pays the network receiving the call for the MTAS. The originating network recovers the costs of the MTAS in the retail price it charges its customers for providing the call.
The MTAS has been regulated by the ACCC since 1997. Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the ACCC has the power to set terms and conditions for access to regulated services, including the MTAS. These terms and conditions provide fallback for parties if they cannot otherwise reach commercial agreements on access to the service.
Release number: 207/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Business
Media

30 September 2020Personal mobile alarm company Flight Plan Digital Pty Ltd, trading as Live Life Alarms, has paid penalties of $25,200 after the ACCC issued two infringement notices for alleged false or misleading representations made on its website in relation to a testimonial and its ‘14 day money back guarantee’.
Live Life Alarms is an online seller of personal ‘SOS’ alarms which are typically used by the elderly and people with disabilities to contact friends, family or emergency services if they require urgent assistance.
The ACCC had reasonable grounds to believe that Live Life Alarms contravened the Australian Consumer Law by making the alleged false or misleading representations.
The ACCC alleges that, in January 2020, Live Life Alarms published a testimonial on its website and represented that it was from a customer of Live Life Alarms when, in fact, the testimonial related to a competitor’s product.
“One of the ACCC’s infringement notices related to the publication of a fake testimonial on Live Life Alarms website. This alleged conduct was of particular concern to the ACCC as it may have influenced potentially vulnerable consumers to purchase a personal alarm from Live Life Alarms,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
Live Life Alarms also allegedly made false or misleading representations on its website that customers who exercised their rights under its ’14 day money back guarantee’ would be refunded the full purchase price of the alarm.
These representations were conveyed by the following statements online: ‘Satisfaction guaranteed. Our system comes with a 14 day money back guarantee’; and ‘If for any reason you are not completely satisfied with your purchase we will give you a 14 day money-back guarantee from the time you receive the goods.’
The ACCC alleges that when providing refunds to customers who were not satisfied with the product, Life Live Alarms deducted $95 from the purchase price of $497 for postage and packing, credit card transaction fees and other set-up costs and fees; and as a result deducted almost 20 per cent of the original purchase price from the amount refunded.
“The penalties paid by Live Life Alarms should serve as a warning to businesses that it is unacceptable to mislead consumers about purported testimonials or reviews of their business, or to make false promises about money back guarantees,” Ms Court said. 
Live Life Alarms no longer deducts any amount when providing refunds under its refund policy, and it has removed the testimonial from its website.
Background
Live Life Alarms operates its mobile alarm business online and began trading in Australia in January 2015.
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: 202/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

1 October 2020The ACCC will not oppose the proposed acquisition of Refinitiv Parent Limited (Refinitiv) by the London Stock Exchange Group plc (LSEG).
LSEG and Refinitiv are global companies supplying financial markets infrastructure products and services to financial industry professionals.
In Australia, LSEG primarily supplies clearing services for over-the-counter interest rate derivatives, venue data generated by trading activity on its European trading venues and platforms, and licensing of fixed income and cash equities indices (such as FTSE 100).
In Australia, Refinitiv primarily distributes venue data and indices via consolidated data feeds and desktop terminals, licenses the WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates, and supplies trading services for over-the-counter interest rate derivatives and foreign exchange derivatives.
The ACCC examined horizontal overlaps where both parties supply competing products and services along with a number of vertical relationships between LSEG and Refinitiv, where one party supplies inputs to the other or its rivals.
The merger investigation was extensive and involved contact with a large number of stakeholders and examination of internal documents.
“We consulted with a wide range of competitors and customers and the majority did not express concerns with this transaction,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The ACCC found no material competition concerns in relation to horizontal aspects of the transaction.
In terms of the vertical relationships between LSEG and Refinitiv, the ACCC considered whether the merged entity could favour Refinitiv’s trading venues and platforms in the provision of LSEG’s clearing services. The ACCC also considered whether the merged entity could restrict LSEG’s clearing services rivals from accessing Refinitiv’s trading venues and platforms.
“We determined that the merged entity was unlikely to engage in anticompetitive foreclosure as a change to the established open access approach was likely to lead to commercial, reputational and regulatory risks,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC also investigated whether the merged entity could affect competition for financial indices and financial data products by restricting rival providers’ ability to distribute those products via Refinitiv’s real-time data feeds and desktop terminals, or if rivals rely on the merged entity for inputs such as currency benchmark rates, pricing data for financial instruments and security identifiers.
“The industry is characterised by interconnected relationships, where large, sophisticated market participants are often both customers and competitors of each other across different products and services. If the merged entity sought to disadvantage rivals, there would be a negative response from industry and the potential for increased regulatory scrutiny,” Mr Sims said.
“Such a strategy could also diminish the value of the merged entity’s offering relative to competitors. Rivals would likely be able to effectively leverage their bargaining power to defeat any attempted price rise or decrease in service quality.”
Further information is available at: London Stock Exchange Group plc – Refinitiv Parent Limited
Background
The proposed acquisition is a global transaction and is being considered by a number of competition regulators around the world, including the European Commission. The transaction has been cleared in the US and Canada amongst other jurisdictions.
LSEG is an international financial markets infrastructure business. Its global business activities include: capital markets trading venues and platforms (for example, London Stock Exchange, Borsa Italiana (operator of the Italian Stock Exchange) and MTS), clearing services (LCH Group, including SwapClear and ForexClear), and data and information products (including venue data, indices and benchmarks (FTSE Russell) and financial security identifiers (SEDOLs)). Trading venues are electronic platforms on which financial transactions occur, for example a stock exchange, or over-the-counter trading venue.
Refinitiv is a financial markets data and infrastructure business. Its global business activities include: financial data and analytics including real-time data feeds (Elektron), desktop terminals (Eikon) and financial security identifiers (RICs)), capital markets trading platforms (Tradeweb and FXall), and index licensing (including WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates).
Release number: 203/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Business

Topics

Mergers

29 September 2020The ACCC is warning drivers of an urgent safety risk after about 6,000 Toyota Corollas were added to the existing compulsory recall for vehicles fitted with dangerous Takata PSAN airbags.
In late August in Sydney, two passengers suffered injuries including burns and cuts by flying metal shrapnel from a PSAN passenger airbag which misdeployed when a 2004 Toyota Corolla rear-ended another vehicle.
The affected Toyota Corollas ZZE122 and ZZE123 MY 2003-2005 have now been added to the compulsory recall.
These vehicles are already under voluntary recall for the driver’s side airbag, however Toyota has recently been advised by Toyota Motor Corporation Japan that the affected vehicles also contain Takata PSAN passenger airbags, which are subject to the current compulsory recall.
Toyota Australia is urgently investigating to ensure all affected vehicles are now captured under the compulsory recall.
There have been at least 29 deaths and more than 320 injuries associated with Takata PSAN airbags worldwide. In Australia, in addition to this new incident, there has been one death and one serious injury reported.
“These Takata airbags are dangerous and can explode with too much force which can send sharp metal fragments into the vehicle cabin at high speed, potentially killing or seriously injuring its occupants,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said. 
“As other vehicles may be added to the existing compulsory recall list from time to time, please check if your vehicle is affected even if you have checked before, by visiting ismyairbagsafe.com.au. It takes less than a minute and could save lives.”
“Please do not ignore any correspondence from your manufacturer about the Takata airbag recall. If your vehicle is under recall, please act now to arrange for a free replacement,” Ms Rickard said.
Consumers can check www.ismyairbagsafe.com.au, visit the Product Safety Australia website or contact their vehicle manufacturer to check if their vehicle is affected.
Background:
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 may hit vehicle occupants, potentially injuring or killing them.
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, a NADI airbag. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications is monitoring the NADI voluntary recalls.
Release number: 201/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Motor cars
Product Safety

29 September 2020Fixed line NBN broadband services have continued to deliver strong results despite facing unprecedented demand during May and June this year, according to the ACCC’s tenth quarterly Measuring Broadband Australia report.
This is the first quarterly report to provide detailed results on network performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, which put sustained pressure on broadband networks as many Australians moved schooling and work to home.
“We have seen an improvement in download speeds for all speed tier plans and across all retail service providers (RSPs) during the period from May to June,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
MyRepublic and iiNet have shown the greatest improvement in their busy hour download speeds, 5.4 per cent and 4.0 per cent respectively, since the last report.
“Speeds are also similar to those seen prior to the pandemic, in spite of a prolonged surge in broadband demand as households and businesses practice coronavirus restrictions.”
“NBN Co’s decision to offer RSPs 40 per cent extra network capacity for free has been vital to the network’s sustained performance, and we welcome their decision to extend this offer until 30 November,” Mr Sims added.
The ACCC previously reported that average download speeds on NBN Co’s 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps tiers had dropped by 14 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively before the move by NBN Co and the measures by streaming providers to reduce their picture quality for viewers.
This report has expanded the video content streaming tests to include all speed tiers from the NBN12 plan to the NBN100, and measures the number of simultaneous streams a NBN plan would be able to support.
“Our streaming test now includes all major NBN plans but we are keen to expand our testing to the new gigabit plans some RSPs offer. We encourage people on these new plans to sign up to our program,” Mr Sims said.
Streaming test results from popular Netflix video content indicate that all plans can maintain at least one high definition stream, with the higher speed plans being able to successfully support multiple ultra-high definition quality content, at the one time.
“These results should prompt consumers to contact their RSPs to better understand which plans best suit their needs and streaming quality preferences,” Mr Sims said.
Mr Sims said a continuing positive finding is the steady decline in underperforming services from 9.6 per cent to 8.1 per cent, due to consumers having their modem or in-home wiring issues fixed, or moving to lower and less expensive speed plans to ensure they receive the speeds they pay for.
“We encourage NBN Co and RSPs to continue to build upon this result especially given the additional investment in FTTN service improvements announced last week by NBN Co,” Mr Sims said.
“We welcome this decision by NBN Co especially since one in five FTTN customers on higher speed plans are still not getting anywhere near what they are paying for,” Mr Sims added.
The ACCC also released its second monthly key indicators report which shows the trend in daily download speeds for each month from May to July.
Results indicate that network performance during this period has continued to hold up well. An upward trend observed from mid-July is likely due to NBN Co altering their access products to allow consumers to have slightly higher speeds.
The ACCC is calling on broadband customers to volunteer and to also take part in the free speed test program via measuringbroadbandaustralia.com.au
More information
Measuring Broadband Australia Quarterly Report
Measuring Broadband Australia Key Indicators Report
Broadband speed information for consumers
Home broadband consumer guidance
Note to editors
The unprecedented demand during COVID-19 has required additional checks of the MBA test data so we can remain confident that the metrics we are reporting accurately show the speed and quality available to consumers when using their broadband service to access popular online content and applications. These checks led us to defer the test period used for this report by a few weeks, and to discard some results that were recorded to our test server in Western Australia. It is likely the discarded results had been affected by congestion that occurred on the data network hosting that test server, which a consumer would be unlikely to have encountered in their own use of their broadband service. We will continue to apply these additional assurance checks throughout the COVID period.
The impact of server specific congestion on speed metrics for each day in May June and July is shown in the Monthly Report.
Background
The Federal Government funded the ACCC to run a national broadband performance monitoring and reporting program from 2017-21.
Data for Measuring Broadband Australia is provided by UK-based firm SamKnows using methodology based on established speed testing programs in the UK, US and Canada.
Release number: 199/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Industry
Media

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

29 September 2020The Full Federal Court today dismissed an ACCC appeal against a Federal Court judgment in relation to environmental claims made by Woolworths about their ‘W Select eco’ picnic products.
The ACCC’s case was that claims made by Woolworths between November 2014 and November 2017 about its range of disposable plates, bowls and cutlery which were labelled ‘biodegradable and compostable’ were false and misleading.
The ACCC alleged that Woolworths represented to consumers that the picnic products would biodegrade and compost within a reasonable period of time when disposed of in a domestic compost bin or conventional landfill site.
The ACCC had also alleged Woolworths had failed to make reasonable or adequate efforts to substantiate these claims before making them, and that the claims were about ‘future matters’.  Under the Australian Consumer Law, representations about ‘future matters’ are deemed to be misleading unless the business has reasonable grounds to make the representation. 
The trial judge found that Woolworths had not made the representations in the form alleged by the ACCC and, in any event, the representations made by Woolworths were not about ‘future matters’. 
The Full Federal Court found that the trial judge had not made an error when finding that the words ‘biodegradable and compostable’ referred to an inherent characteristic of the picnic products, and not about a future matter.
“We appealed this case because we believe that businesses should be able to support claims they make about their products, especially when consumers are likely to pay more for the product because of the claims made,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Consumers may select products based on the claims made by the seller or manufacturer, and should be able to rely on environmental claims made by businesses about their products.”
“We will now carefully consider the judgment,” Mr Sims said.
Background
In March 2018, the ACCC commenced legal action in the Federal Court, alleging that the environmental representations Woolworths made about its ‘W Select eco’ picnic products were false, misleading or deceptive, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
On 5 July 2019 the Federal Court found Woolworths’ claims were not misleading. The following month, the ACCC appealed the Federal Court decision.
 

Release number: 200/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

23 September 2020The ACCC has received an award from the International Competition Network and World Bank Group for its work to improve competition in the Australian dairy industry, which involved an inquiry into competition in the sector, and subsequent recommendation of a mandatory code. The dairy inquiry was completed in April 2018.
The annual contest recognises the role that competition agencies and government departments play in promoting competition and its benefits through activities other than enforcement action.
“It’s an honour to be acknowledged on the global stage, and this award is well-deserved recognition of the ACCC’s advocacy for an industry code to promote greater competition and efficiency in the Australian dairy industry,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“The dairy inquiry found that the combination of imbalanced bargaining power and unequal availability of information between processors and farmers reduced competition between processors. At that time, neither the existing legal framework, nor any voluntary industry-based solution, sufficiently addressed these issues, so we advocated an enforceable code of conduct.”
“The dairy code came into effect at the start of this year and it has already increased the transparency of information that farmers need to compare rival offers, and removed some barriers to farmers switching processors where it’s in their interests,” Mr Sims said.
The ACCC received the award late Tuesday night, as part of the 2019-2020 International Competition Network and World Bank Group Competition Advocacy Contest.
Award winners in other categories included the US Federal Trade Commission, the Hong Kong Competition Commission, and Portugal’s Competition Authority.
Release number: 198/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

International activities
Agriculture

21 September 2020The ACCC has accepted a court-enforceable undertaking by Back In Motion Physiotherapy Pty Ltd to remove certain terms from its franchisees agreements which it admits may be unfair.
Under a restraint of trade clause contained in most of the Back In Motion Physiotherapy franchise agreements, any franchisee who wanted to leave the group was not allowed to be involved in any competing practice located within a radius of up to 10 kilometres of a Back In Motion Physiotherapy franchise for up to 12 months.
“Effectively, this clause in the franchise agreement meant that most former franchisees could not operate in many parts of metropolitan areas of Australia because of the existence of other Back In Motion Physiotherapy franchise outlets in those locations,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“We were concerned that this clause may cause detriment to franchisees seeking to exit the Back In Motion Physiotherapy franchise.”
The franchise agreements also included a clause under which Back In Motion Physiotherapy could charge franchisees a ‘buy out fee’ equal to four times their annual royalty fees, if they opted to be released from the unfair restraint of trade.
Back In Motion Physiotherapy has admitted that the restraint of trade and buy-out fee terms, which have been part of most of their standard franchise agreement for more than 15 years, may be ‘unfair’ as defined by the Australian Consumer Law.
After being contacted by the ACCC, Back In Motion Physiotherapy has undertaken not to enforce the restraint of trade and buy-out fee terms in future, or for franchisees who have left the group in the past 12 months. It will also not include these terms in its future franchise agreements.
Back In Motion Physiotherapy has also undertaken to inform all affected franchisees including those who left within the past 12 months that these terms will not be enforced.
“Franchisees can now leave the Back in Motion Physiotherapy franchise group and find work or set up business anywhere in Australia, including in the same area without having to pay an exorbitant fee,” Mr Keogh said.
“Franchisors often have a stronger bargaining position in their dealings with franchisees, and we will investigate and take action against franchisors where we believe their contracts with small businesses contain unfair contract terms under the Australian Consumer Law.”
A clause restricting former franchisees for nine months from actively soliciting a client they know has been a client of a Back In Motion Physiotherapy franchise located within 10km of the former franchisee’s Back in Motion Physiotherapy practice continues to apply.
Notes to editors
Under the Australian Consumer Law and the Franchising Code of Conduct, there is no prohibition on businesses including or relying on unfair contract terms against franchisees. 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.
The ACCC is responsible for regulating mandatory industry codes that are prescribed under the Competition and Consumer Act, including the Franchising Code of Conduct. The Franchising Code is a mandatory national code that regulates the conduct of franchising participants towards each other.
The activities of the ACCC in franchise matters include:

the provision of comprehensive franchise education and guidance materials,
an active Franchise Code compliance program, and
enforcement activities, including the issuing of infringement notices and commencing court action in appropriate cases where corporations breach the law.

Further information about franchising is available on our website at www.accc.gov.au/smallbusiness.
Background
Back In Motion Physiotherapy is a franchisor with a network of over 500 franchisees who provide physiotherapy and related services in Australia and New Zealand. They are one of the largest businesses in the market for physiotherapy and related services.
Back In Motion Physiotherapy has used a standard form franchise agreement for the supply of franchised physiotherapy practices since at least 2004.
Release number: 197/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Franchising

21 September 2020Australians have lost over $300,000 to rental and accommodation scams this year, an increase of 76 per cent compared to the same time last year.
Scamwatch has received 560 reports of rental scams so far this year, an increase of 56 per cent, with many using tactics related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
These scams target people seeking new rental accommodation by offering fake rental properties to convince people into handing over money or personal information.
“Scammers are offering reduced rents due to COVID-19 and using the government restrictions to trick people into transferring money without inspecting the property,” ACCC Deputy Commissioner Delia Rickard said.
The scammer will post advertisements on real estate or classified websites or target people who have posted on social media that they are looking for a room.
After the victim responds, the scammer will request an upfront deposit to secure the property or phish for personal information through a ‘tenant application form’, promising to provide the keys after the payment or information is provided.
The scammer may come up with excuses for further payments and the victim often only realises they have been scammed when the keys don’t arrive and the scammer cuts off contact.
Some scammers will even impersonate real estate agents and organise fake inspections, victims will then arrive to discover the property doesn’t exist or is currently occupied.
“The loss of personal information through rental scams is becoming more common, with scammers requesting copies of identity documents such as passports, bank statements or payslips,” Ms Rickard said.
“Once a scammer has your personal information you are at risk of being targeted by further scams or identity theft.”
“Many people are also experiencing financial difficulties due to the pandemic and the financial impact of falling victim to a scam can be devastating,” Ms Rickard said.
People aged 25-34 reported the most rental scams so far in 2020, and the most reports came from NSW, VIC and the ACT.
A common rental scam operating in Canberra involves a scammer impersonating a doctor living in Sweden who only offers virtual inspections and then requests bond money.
“Try to view a property in person before paying any bond or rent money to landlords or real estate agents,” Ms Rickard said.  
“In areas of Victoria under COVID-19 level 4 restrictions this is not possible, but you can help protect yourself by doing an online search to confirm the property exists and, if dealing with an agent, checking that the agent you are dealing with is licensed.”
“Scammers often rely on email communications to avoid identification, do an independent search for a phone number and speak to the property manager over the phone or arrange a meeting in person,” Ms Rickard said.  
“Before making any payments ensure you are dealing with the licensed agent, if a scammer has your details they may impersonate a real estate agent and attempt to ‘follow-up’ requesting money after an inspection.”
Potential renters can contact their state consumer protection agency for information on bond requirements and tenants’ rights in their state.
More information on scams is available on the Scamwatch website, including how to make a report and where to get help.
You can also follow @scamwatch_gov on Twitter and subscribe to Scamwatch radar alerts.

Background:
Anyone who suspects they are a victim of a rental scam should act quickly to reduce the risk of financial loss or other damages.
They should contact their bank as soon as possible and, if relevant, contact the platform on which they were scammed to inform them of the circumstances.
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: 196/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Consumers
Media

Topics

Scams

18 September 2020Eyewear retailer Oscar Wylee has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $3.5 million in penalties for misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations about its charitable donations and affiliations, in breach of Australian Consumer Law.
Oscar Wylee admitted that between January 2014 and December 2018 it made statements in its social media posts, emails, on its website, and promotional merchandise that for each pair of glasses a consumer purchased, it donated another pair of glasses to someone in need, when it did not do so.
The false marketing claims made by Oscar Wylee included the claims that ‘For every pair purchased, a pair is donated to someone in need’, ‘One for one. All the time. Forever. We donate a pair of glasses to those in need for every pair purchased’ and ‘Buy a pair, give a pair’.
In almost five years, Oscar Wylee sold 328,010 pairs of glasses but donated only 3,181 frames to charity, without lenses, which is about one set of frames for each 100 pairs of glasses sold.
“Oscar Wylee promoted its charitable activities as a core reason why consumers should buy Oscar Wylee glasses, but its claims were false and were made in circumstances where consumers could not easily verify these claims for themselves,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“The misleading conduct also portrayed Oscar Wylee as a socially-conscious company that made significant donations of glasses to people in need, which, because this was not true, unfairly differentiated it from other brands in the market.”
“At the same time, Oscar Wylee deprived disadvantaged people in need of the benefits it promised in its advertising,” Ms Rickard said.
Oscar Wylee also admitted to making false or misleading representations to consumers between January 2014 and December 2018 that it was closely affiliated with the charitable organisation, Rose Charities.
These claims included statements like ‘We have partnered with Rose Charities which helps build sustainable eye care programs in Cambodia’ and ‘We’re funding Lim studying to be an eye surgeon so he can keep taking solutions into his own hands’.
In fact, Oscar Wylee’s association with Rose Charities during this period consisted of a single donation of $2,000 and 100 frames in 2014. No further donations or support were provided to Rose Charities after this time, despite Oscar Wylee continuing to claim an affiliation with the charity until late 2018.
In her judgment, Justice Katzmann said: “Oscar Wylee stood to profit from inducing consumers to purchase its products and still does. It built its reputation by engaging in the contravening conduct, appealing to socially-conscious consumers who wanted to support charitable causes through their purchasing behaviour. Its conduct was a betrayal of that promise.”
In about 2013, the company also published a promotional video on its website and social media under the ‘I care for eyecare’ slogan, which claimed that ‘Oscar Wylee helps out through a range of different ways. From the performance of eye tests, distribution of glasses, performance of cataracts surgeries, and training of eye doctors’.
The video showed scenes of poverty in Cambodia, Rose Charities’ eye clinic in Cambodia, and stated ‘Every Oscar Wylee glasses purchase will help restore vision in developing regions’.
“Oscar Wylee has taken advantage of the charitable nature and goodwill of consumers and its behaviour risks diminishing consumer confidence to support other businesses that genuinely engage in philanthropic activities,” Ms Rickard said.
“This penalty should serve as a reminder for any company considering making false claims to its customers in its marketing material, whether online, by email, on video, on social media or in store.”
In addition to imposing penalties, the Court also ordered Oscar Wylee to publish information online explaining its breaches of the ACL, and pay a contribution to the ACCC’s costs.
Oscar Wylee admitted liability and made joint submissions with the ACCC to the Federal Court consenting to the orders sought.
Background
Oscar Wylee, an Australian optometry and eyewear retailer, commenced operations in 2012, initially operating solely as an online retailer, marketing to consumers through its website, social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, and by email newsletters. In 2015, Oscar Wylee opened its first bricks and mortar retail stores, which now number over 60.
In 2013, prior to the period at issue in the proceedings, Oscar Wylee also made a donation of $2,000 to Rose Charities.
Examples of Oscar Wylee marketing claims are below:

Release number: 195/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

17 September 2020The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and participants in gas and electricity markets have been authorised to cooperate on measures to secure Australia’s energy supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authorisation granted by the ACCC today allows AEMO and energy industry participants to share essential personnel, essential inputs such as parts and equipment, and information about the operation of their facilities. They will also be permitted to co-ordinate repairs and maintenance.
“It is essential that Australian businesses and households have access to reliable and efficient energy supplies. The ACCC’s authorisation will allow industry to work together in a way that will help to minimise the risk of short-falls, particularly over the summer period,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.
“This will also allow AEMO and industry participants to coordinate their busy maintenance period after summer, including on important repairs that were delayed during 2020 because of COVID-19. This co-ordination will also allow them to minimise the chance of COVID-19 outbreaks within facilities.”
Cooperation between energy market participants under the proposed authorisation must be facilitated by AEMO. It does not allow the sharing of information about wholesale or retail energy prices, retail costs or profits; or any agreements relating to these issues.
The conditions of authorisation are similar to those that have applied to AEMO’s interim authorisation granted in April 2020 and will apply for the full duration of the authorisation, until 31 May 2021.
AEMO must report publicly on any coordination undertaken under the authorisation. The authorisation also ensures that any agreements between parties cease when the authorisation expires.
“We’ve already seen benefits of the interim authorisation, through the sharing of information and the implementation of COVID-19 precautions at facilities. For example, AEMO has been coordinating maintenance at generators in Victoria and Queensland so that more generation capacity is available to meet demand during summer,” Mr Ridgeway said.
More information is available on the ACCC public register at Australian Energy Market Operator.
Background
AEMO manages electricity and gas markets and systems across Australia to ensure a reliable, secure, affordable and sustainable energy system. Its members include government and industry participants.
Electricity industry participants that might qualify for the authorisation include electricity generators, retailers, network service providers, metering service providers, and many other industry specific service providers. Gas industry participants that might qualify include producers, traders, retailers, storage providers and many other industry specific service providers.
AEMO lodged its application for authorisation and request for interim authorisation on 30 March 2020. The range of conduct proposed by AEMO and the duration of authorisation sought were varied by AEMO in April, May and July.
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 likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.
Release number: 194/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

COVID-19
Authorisations
Energy

17 September 2020The ACCC’s Airline Competition in Australia report released today explores the significant impact of COVID-19 on the sector and outlines the approach the ACCC will take to protecting competition. The report is the first under the Federal Treasurer’s direction to monitor domestic air passenger services.
In April 2020, travel restrictions led to a 95 per cent reduction in Australian airline passengers compared to the same time last year. The Sydney-Melbourne route, which was previously the second busiest flight corridor in the world, saw passenger numbers fall from 742,000 in April 2019 to 17,000 in April 2020, a fall of around 98 per cent.
“COVID-19 has created some of the most difficult market conditions in Australian aviation history and it’s critical that when the industry starts scaling up domestic flying, any potential damage to competition is identified quickly and acted on,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“A lot has changed since the Treasurer directed us to take on this new role in June. Domestic airline travel was expected to be on its way to returning to more regular operations by now but infection spikes in some states and tighter border restrictions have delayed the recovery.”
“Australia’s domestic airline industry over the next few years may look quite different to the one that went into 2020,” Mr Sims said.
“Air travel is vital for the economy in a country as large and geographically dispersed as Australia. Competition must be safeguarded through this period so our domestic airline industry can meet the needs of consumers, and the economy more broadly.”
The ACCC’s approach to protecting competition in the sector will include monitoring, reporting, advocacy, investigation and, where necessary, enforcement action.
The report outlines the types of activities that could damage competition and for which the ACCC will be watching as the industry moves towards more regular operations. These activities include airlines entering into agreements with suppliers to prevent competitors from offering services, or altering schedules to prevent a competitor entering the market.
Central to protecting competition will be the ACCC’s analysis of monthly flight capacity, passenger numbers, and revenue data from Qantas, Virgin and Rex, who together supply the vast majority of Australia’s passenger airline services.
The ACCC can obtain information from airlines using its formal data gathering powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. 
“We will act if we identify behaviour that damages competition, either arising from the conduct by airlines directly or through their arrangements with others,” Mr Sims said.
“The ACCC will be reporting to government regularly and this will assist with informed policy development, particularly if we observe signs that competition in the sector is not effective.”
The report reveals that airline downsizing and expansion is happening concurrently as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Market changes have created opportunities for some airlines to expand into the domestic network as the availability of infrastructure, aircraft, pilots and fuel has improved. At the same time, major airlines Qantas and Virgin are downsizing and restructuring their fleets and workforces to reduce operating costs.
“This new airline monitoring role for the ACCC is focused on competition, but it sits alongside all of our other work on disrupted travel and consumer guarantees,” Mr Sims said.
Australian domestic air services – January 2019 to June 2020

Source: Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics; Australian domestic airline activity.
Note: Data is for regular public transport (i.e. commercial flight operations on fixed schedules and specific routes available to the general public) and does not include charter operations.
Background
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.
The ACCC has sought information from Qantas, Virgin Australia and Rex regarding their strategies as the industry recovers from the impact of travel restrictions and COVID-19 more broadly. It has also established an ongoing data collection process which will inform future public reports. 
Release number: 193/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

COVID-19
Competition and Consumer Act 2010

15 September 2020Operator protection devices, or roll bars, on quad bikes may significantly reduce the number of times a rider is injured or killed by the quad bike when it rolls sideways in an accident, according to a new US Government study.
The study, which was commissioned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), used various quad bike models and a test dummy to test the effectiveness of operator protection devices (OPDs) in rollover accidents at low or moderate speed.
Quad bikes are popular vehicles for work and play and rollover incidents occur regularly, sometimes resulting in tragic consequences.
Since 2011, 149 people have died from quad bike related accidents in Australia, 23 of whom have been children. In addition, it is estimated six people present to an emergency department each day as a result of quad bike related injuries.
The report comes ahead of the Australian Government’s quad bike safety standard becoming mandatory next month, under which all new and second hand imported general use quad bikes sold must have a test tag attached indicating the angle at which they will rollover, and from October 2021 must have an OPD fitted.
The US CPSC report includes the result of lateral rollover tests conducted on six different quad bike models fitted with ATV Lifeguard and Quadbar OPDs and compared them to tests without an OPD at what the researchers termed low and moderate speeds.
The low speed tests were conducted in scenarios that in many ways mimic Australian conditions and typical quad bike use.
“The study used state of the art testing equipment including test dummies with sophisticated electronic sensors, and is perhaps the most rigorous real-world test of OPDs yet conducted. The results support the ACCC’s view that OPDs are likely to save lives,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“In low speed lateral rollover tests involving a quad bike with an OPD, significant impact between the quad bike and the crash test dummy was virtually eliminated.”
“In contrast, in rollover tests of the same model quad bikes without an OPD, the test dummy was struck more than five times more often,” Mr Keogh said.
Research indicates that in Australia, 80 per cent of quad bike accidents that have resulted in serious injury occurred at or below the low speeds tested.
Even at moderate speeds, the tests showed that an OPD resulted in fewer significant impacts between the quad bike and the test dummy.
Importantly, the test results also highlight that a vehicle’s design can affect how it reacts in a rollover. One of the quad bikes tested performed markedly different to others, rolling over faster and further, and striking the test dummy more than any other quad bike with and without an OPD. This shows the importance of the government’s minimum stability requirements that also apply from October 2021.
“Poorer performing vehicles like this one will no longer be able to be sold in Australia once the stability requirements become mandatory,” Mr Keogh said.
“This study shows why the Australian Government’s safety standard is appropriate, and likely to reduce quad bike injuries and deaths. To the extent we can infer that these results would also apply in real world events, OPDs and the minimum stability requirements are likely to reduce rollover incidents, and reduce the harm to riders in the event of a rollover.”
“It also reinforces that even with OPDs fitted it is always important to ride safely and wear the appropriate safety gear,” Mr Keogh said.  
Notes to editors
There were two types of lateral rollover tests involved in the CPSC research, dynamic and sled. The dynamic tests were conducted with autonomous quad bikes that were either fitted with the ATV Lifeguard and Quadbar, or did not have an OPD. A test dummy was used as a surrogate rider at both low speeds (of between 32km/h and 39km/h) and at moderate speeds (of between 38km/h and 42km/h).
The sled tests were conducted in a laboratory using a sled to accelerate the quad bike sideways until it hit the ground causing a rollover at 23km/h (low speed) and 30km/h (moderate speed). Similar to the dynamic tests, the quad bikes used a test dummy as a surrogate rider and were either fitted with the ATV Lifeguard and Quadbar or did not have an OPD.
The major use of quad bikes in Australia is farming, while in the US recreational use is dominant, when quad bikes may often operate at higher speeds.
Over 80 per cent of quad bike accidents in Australia that have caused serious injury occur at or under 35km/h, with the majority occurring on flat terrain.
At least 60 per cent of fatalities from quad bike incidents in Australia between 2011–2018 occurred when the bike rolled over and the rider was pinned underneath the bike, being asphyxiated or crushed.
Background
In October 2019, the Federal Government accepted the ACCC’s recommendation to introduce a new mandatory safety standard for quad bikes.
The safety standard has two stages:
Stage 1: 11 October 2020
All new quad bikes, and imported second-hand quad bikes must:

meet the specified requirements of the US quad bike Standard, ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 or the EN 15997:2011 Standard and have a spark arrester installed that conforms to AS 1019-2000 or 5100-d Standards
be tested for lateral static stability using a tilt table test and display the angle at which they tip onto two wheels on a hang tag at the point of sale
have a durable label affixed, visible and legible when the quad bike is in operation, alerting the operator to the risk of rollover, and must include rollover safety information in the owner’s manual.

Stage 2: 11 October 2021
All new and imported second hand general-use model quad bikes must:

be fitted with, or have integrated into the design, an operator protection device
meet the minimum stability requirements of: – lateral stability—must not tip on to two wheels on a slope less than 28.81 degrees – front and rear longitudinal pitch stability—must not tip on to two wheels on a slope less than 38.65 degrees.

Release number: 191/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Product Safety

15 September 2020The Australian Competition Tribunal has granted authorisation for a new consumer code for retailers of ‘new energy tech’ products, varying the conditions from those previously imposed by the ACCC in relation to “buy now pay later” (BNPL) finance providers.
The New Energy Tech Consumer Code sets minimum standards of good practice and consumer protection in relation to solar generation systems, energy storage systems, electrical vehicle charging and other emerging energy products and services. It applies to all aspects of customers’ interactions with participating retailers, including marketing, sales, finance and payments, warranties and complaints handling processes.
In the ACCC’s authorisation decision in December 2019, the ACCC imposed conditions that strengthened consumer protection requirements for BNPL providers, and clarified the prohibition on code signatories offering BNPL finance in unsolicited sales of new energy products. The authorisation also included additional reporting conditions.
Flexigroup, a BNPL provider, sought a review of the ACCC’s determination by the Tribunal, seeking to have the ACCC’s conditions relating to BNPL finance replaced with less stringent consumer protection requirements and removal of the prohibition on BNPL finance being offered with unsolicited sales of new energy tech products. 
The Tribunal varied the conditions of authorisation in relation to the requirements that BNPL finance providers must meet in order for signatories to offer such finance arrangements under the Code, and imposed a condition removing the prohibition on BNPL finance being offered in unsolicited sales of new energy tech. 
The varied conditions also remove the Code administrators’ ability to impose mandatory standards on signatories that would apply to future new energy tech products and services.
“The New Energy Tech Code aims to provide consumers with added protections and more information to help them make better informed decisions around what can be complex, expensive purchases,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said  
“The ACCC considered that the option to choose “buy now pay later” finance was valued by consumers but that, based on the submissions made to the ACCC, greater protections around responsible finance and a prohibition on “buy now pay later” finance being offered in unsolicited sales of new energy tech were appropriate to reduce the risk of harm to consumers from entering into unsuitable or unaffordable finance arrangements,” Mr Ridgeway said.
After conducting a hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the detailed evidence before it did not establish that the provision of BNPL finance with new energy tech products generated material consumer harm. It also found that there was substantial detriment in restricting BNPL finance options to consumers and that BNPL was a significant and popular form of finance that provided economic benefits.
The Tribunal also considered that any harm which may arise by unlawful selling of these products could be reduced by the consumer protections contained in the Code. 
The Tribunal further noted that ASIC has been actively considering whether the National Consumer Credit laws should be extended to cover BNPL finance and that ASIC’s review of the sector will have more evidence before it to consider whether such an extension is warranted.
A summary of the Tribunal’s Determination can be found here: Tribunal Summary of Determination.
Background
On 30 April 2019, the Clean Energy Council, the Australian Energy Council, the Smart Energy Council and Energy Consumers Australia lodged an application on behalf of themselves and future signatory providers of new energy tech for authorisation for the Consumer Code.
Flexigroup was a participant in the ACCC’s public consultation in respect of the application for authorisation. 
On 5 December 2019 the ACCC decided to grant authorisation subject to a number of conditions to enable the public benefits of the Consumer Code to be more fully realised, reduce the likely detriments and to help assess the ongoing operation of the Consumer Code.
Flexigroup Limited applied to the Tribunal for review under section 101 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) of the ACCC’s determination.
This matter was heard by the Tribunal between 9 and 12 June 2020. The role of the ACCC in this review was to assist the Tribunal.
Release number: 192/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Authorisations

10 September 2020The Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP) and major oil refiners have been granted authorisation by the ACCC to continue cooperating on measures to improve the security of fuel supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic continues to impact on Australia’s fuel supply chain, causing unpredictable changes in demand for fuel and creating a potential for major disruptions to the domestic and international fuel supply chains.
The ACCC’s authorisation allows AIP and major oil refiners to coordinate arrangements to address fuel supply issues in Australia arising as a result of the pandemic, and facilitate the efficient use of refining and fuel storage capacity during the pandemic. 
“We believe that allowing fuel companies to coordinate fuel delivery, processing and storage if there is a critical supply disruption as a result of the pandemic, will support the fuel sector to ensure the supply of fuel products in Australia is secure and reliable, and reduce the risk of shortages,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.
“While we acknowledge there are some risks the conduct may reduce competition, the limited scope and duration of the authorisation, and the reporting conditions mean the risk is low.”
“Overall, the benefits of allowing parties to work together to secure the supply of fuel products to Australian businesses and consumers outweigh any potential detriments,” Mr Ridgeway said. 
This final authorisation, which was granted after seeking feedback from interested parties, continues an interim authorisation first granted on 3 April 2020. It is subject to conditions and expires on 31 March 2021.
The ACCC has authorised the conduct for six months, rather than the twelve months sought by the applicants, as the ACCC is not convinced that the longer period is required for the authorisation.
“We think that the effects of COVID-19 on the fuel sector may sufficiently dissipate in six months. We believe the shorter period of authorisation is appropriate to deal with the impacts of the pandemic and will minimise the risk of longer-term impact on the fuel markets,” Mr Ridgeway said.
The authorisation applies to AIP (the industry’s peak body), its members (BP Australia, Caltex Australia, Mobil Oil Australia and Viva Energy Australia) and any future parties wishing to participate in the conduct, which must first be approved by the ACCC.
Under the conditions of authorisation, AIP must provide minutes of any relevant meetings and seek approval from the ACCC to add future parties to the authorisation.
The authorisation does not allow the parties to make any price agreements or to exchange any commercially or competitively sensitive information relating to marketing or sales activities.
The authorisation will come into force on 2 October 2020, if no application for review of the determination is made to the Australian Competition Tribunal.
More information, including the ACCC’s statement of reasons, is available at Australian Institute of Petroleum. 
Background:
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. Broadly, the ACCC may grant a final authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.
Release number: 190/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

COVID-19
Authorisations

10 September 2020The ACCC will not oppose Mylan NV’s proposed merger with Pfizer’s Upjohn Inc division, after Mylan and Upjohn offered a court-enforceable undertaking to divest three off-patent branded pharmaceuticals in response to the ACCC’s competition concerns.
Mylan and Upjohn are global pharmaceutical businesses competing across a range of therapeutic products including cardiovascular and glaucoma treatments. After the transaction, the combined Mylan and Upjohn businesses will be owned by Upjohn, which will be renamed ‘Viatris’. 
The divestiture undertaking accepted by the ACCC means that competition that would have been lost as a result of this merger will be replaced by competition from the ACCC approved buyer of these off-patent brands. The ACCC has approved Aspen up-front as the buyer, after an agreement was reached between Aspen and the merger parties.
The active ingredients supplied to pharmacies and hospitals which are to be sold are:

Amlodipine/Atorvastatin (Brand name: Caduet – a lipid-regulating cardiovascular treatment)
Latanoprost (Brand name: Xalatan – an anti-glaucoma treatment)
Latanoprost/Timolol (Brand name: Xalacom – an anti-glaucoma treatment)

The ACCC was concerned that the merger would significantly reduce competition for the supply of pharmaceutical products based on these active ingredients which are used to treat cardiovascular conditions and certain types of glaucoma.
“Mylan and Upjohn are currently the only suppliers of Amlodipine/Atorvastatin, meaning the proposed merger would make the combined new firm, Viatris, the only supplier in the Australian market,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said. 
“For medicines based on Latanoprost and Latanoprost/Timolol, we were concerned that remaining competitors would not be a sufficient constraint on the merged entity.”
“Caduet, Xalatan and Xalacom are well established brands, and will provide the buyer with a strong opportunity to compete against the new combined firm Viatris,” Mr Ridgeway said.
Pfizer has also provided a court-enforceable undertaking to support the divestment process.
Further information is available at Mylan N.V. and Upjohn Inc. – proposed merger.
Background
The ACCC commenced a review on 24 March 2020.
‘Off-patent brands’ refer to brand-name product with patents that have expired.
This merger is part of a global transaction that is also being considered by competition authorities in other jurisdictions.
Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets and sells generic and branded products, biosimilar medicines and over-the-counter (OTC) remedies.
In Australia, Mylan supplies a portfolio of approximately 350 generic pharmaceutical drugs and over 450 branded, biosimilar medicines and OTC remedies.
Upjohn Inc is wholly-owned and solely controlled by Pfizer’s branded and generic products business. Pfizer Inc  is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets and sells prescription medicines and OTC product.
In Australia, Upjohn supplies a portfolio of 18 pharmaceutical brands which are sold as off-patent products.
Mylan and Upjohn both supply cardiovascular, neurology & pain, psychiatry, urology and ophthalmology pharmaceutical products in Australia.
Mylan’s generic products Cadivast (cardiovascular), Xalaprost and Xalamol 50/5 (ophthalmology) compete with Upjohn’s branded products Caduet, Xalatan and Xalacom.
Aspen Global Incorporated has been approved as the buyer of the brands to be divested. Aspen Global Incorporated will enter into an agreement with Aspen Pharmacare Australia (Aspen) to distribute the products in Australia. Aspen is currently the third largest pharmaceutical supplier by volume in the Australian market. Aspen supplies to all major pharmaceutical wholesalers and to approximately 5,000 pharmacies. Aspen operates a manufacturing facility in Melbourne, Victoria.
Release number: 189/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Mergers

8 September 2020The ACCC will be examining the experiences of Australian consumers, developers, suppliers and others in a new report scrutinising mobile app stores.
Issues to be examined include the use and sharing of data by apps, the extent of competition between Google and Apple’s app stores, and whether more pricing transparency is needed in Australia’s mobile apps market.
Consumers are invited to share their experiences with buying and using apps through a short survey. The ACCC has also released an issues paper seeking views and feedback from app developers and suppliers.
The work is part of a five-year ACCC inquiry which will produce reports every six months examining markets for the supply of digital platform services in Australia.
“Apps have become essential tools for daily living for many Australian consumers, a trend that is likely to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Apps are, in turn, increasingly important for businesses as they promote, grow and run their enterprises,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“We want to know more about the market for mobile apps in Australia, including how transparent and effective the market is, for consumers as well as those operating in the market. We will also focus on the extent of competition between the major online app stores, and how they compete for app sales with other app providers.”
Millions of apps are available for download by Australian consumers for use on mobile devices like phones, tablets and smart watches, and they span a wide range of functions including games, entertainment, health and fitness, education and the delivery of goods, such as food, and services, such as banking.
While there are various app stores or marketplaces, app sales are dominated by the Apple App Store, for iOS, and the Google Play Store, for Android devices.
“For app developers and suppliers, gaining a spot in one of the major app stores can result in significant sales, while failing to gain access can be a major setback. We are keen to provide greater transparency on how this process works,” Ms Rickard said.
“We are also interested in how data is used and shared in the app ecosystem, including the data available to Google and Apple as a result of their control of the major app stores.”
The survey for consumers and the issues paper are available at Digital platforms services inquiry. Submissions close on 2 October 2020. The final report will be handed down in March 2021.
Background
The ACCC’s Digital platforms branch is conducting a five-year inquiry into markets for the supply of digital platform services in Australia, following a direction from the Treasurer. This inquiry will report to the Treasurer every six months and will examine different forms of digital platform services, their advertising services as well as data brokers.
This report, focusing on app marketplaces, will be the second produced under this direction. It will follow a report focusing on online private messaging, social media and search services, which is due to be provided to the Treasurer by 30 September 2020.
Release number: 188/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Internet, phone & TV

4 September 2020The Battery Stewardship Council (BSC) will be able to establish and operate a national scheme for managing expired batteries under an authorisation granted by the ACCC.
BSC was formed in 2018 with the primary goal of establishing a battery stewardship scheme in Australia that would see a significant increase in battery collections and recycling.
Batteries imported by members of the scheme would attract a levy of four cents per 24 grams (the weight of a AA battery). Rebates would then be paid to recyclers to help offset the cost of collecting, sorting and processing expired batteries. Members of the scheme must agree to only deal with other members along the supply chain, with limited exceptions such as for pre-existing arrangements.
The BSC estimates that only about 3 per cent of handheld batteries in Australia are recycled. Most batteries go to landfill.
“This battery stewardship scheme has the potential to be an important tool for encouraging businesses across the battery supply chain to take responsibility for treating batteries in an environmentally responsible way,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.
“The ACCC believes the scheme can achieve significant environmental benefits by increasing the number of batteries that get recycled rather than going to landfill.”
“There are also benefits from increased public awareness around battery disposal and re-use, and supporting increased research and development,” Ms Rickard said.
The ACCC notes that by encouraging consumers to hold onto button batteries for subsequent collection and recycling, there is a risk the scheme may inadvertently increase the safety hazard of young children ingesting batteries or the risk of house fires.
The ACCC’s current advice is for consumers to dispose of used button batteries immediately given the safety risk of serious injury or death if they are swallowed or inserted into the body. Young children are at the greatest risk due to their narrower oesophagus and tendency to place small objects into their mouths, ears and noses.
In order to address this issue of consumers potentially storing button batteries for later recycling, the ACCC has imposed a condition requiring BSC to develop a button battery safety strategy within 12 months. The strategy is to be guided by an advisory group involving the ACCC, relevant industry bodies and medical and child safety experts.
The ACCC has granted authorisation until 26 September 2025.
The ACCC considers it important that BSC is able to demonstrate strong take-up of the scheme, and effective administration and risk management before applying for re-authorisation in 2025.
More information, including the ACCC’s reason for decision is available online on the ACCC’s public register at Battery Stewardship Council.
Notes to editors
The scheme is intended to manage all types of end of life batteries except for automotive lead-acid batteries and batteries that are currently included in a stewardship or recycling scheme (such as the embedded batteries covered by the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme; or the mobile phone batteries covered by MobileMuster).
BSC proposes to offer the following rebates to recyclers:

$2.50/kg for battery collection in metropolitan areas,
$3.50/kg in regional and remote areas (to account for increased costs and logistics),
$1/kg for sorting, and
$1/kg for processing.

BSC was established as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee with the purpose of designing and administering a battery stewardship scheme in Australia.
Authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any public detriment.
Without authorisation, the imposition of the levy and the obligation on scheme members to only deal with other scheme members would risk breaching the Act.
Background
Product Stewardship is an environmental management strategy that means whoever designs, produces, sells or uses a product takes responsibility for minimising that product’s environmental impact through all of the stages of its life-cycle.
The Product Stewardship Act 2011 identifies batteries (of all types) as ‘priority products’ for Stewardship.
The 2019 National Waste Policy Action Plan has indicated an intention for all Governments to develop a common approach to restrict the disposal of priority products and materials in landfill, starting with lithium ion batteries and e-waste by 2021. The Victorian government banned all e-waste, including all batteries, from landfill from 1 July 2019.
The Australian Battery Recycling Initiative (ABRI) has published guidelines on the safe and responsible use of button batteries. These guidelines are specific to button batteries and include the following tips when recycling expired button batteries:

As soon as you have finished using a button battery put sticky tape around them to:

make them less attractive to children
prevent short-circuiting, and
avoid the low risk of having them catch fire.

Once taped, store batteries in a child-proof container.
Take batteries to a designated battery recycling drop-off location.

Release number: 187/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

Authorisations

3 September 2020Supermarket operators will be allowed to continue cooperating to ensure supply of food and groceries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, under an ACCC authorisation granted today.
Coles, Woolworths, Metcash, Aldi, and other grocery retailers whose participation is approved by the ACCC will be allowed to coordinate with each other when working with manufacturers, suppliers, and transport and logistics providers.
“We recognise the impacts that the pandemic continues to have across the economy, including within the food and grocery sector,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.
“Allowing this authorisation to continue will likely result in public benefits by giving supermarket operators the opportunity to maximise consumer access to retail groceries, reduce community concerns and stockpiling behaviour, and reduce strain on retail supply chains.”
The authorised conduct only applies to discussions and agreements made at meetings convened by government agencies. The ACCC has been attending these meetings to observe and monitor the use of the authorisation, and to assess whether it should continue.
“The recent Victorian outbreak and stage 4 restrictions have highlighted the benefits of this authorisation in assisting retailers to maintain supply of grocery products, including to those customers in regional and remote areas,” Mr Ridgeway said. 
Authorisation is granted on similar terms to the interim authorisation and does not extend to coordination about the prices of retail products.
The ACCC is granting authorisation until 31 March 2021. More information about the ACCC’s decision is available on the public register at Coles Group on behalf of itself and participating supermarkets.
Background
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. Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any public detriment.
Release number: 186/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

COVID-19
Authorisations

3 September 2020Competition agencies from five countries including Australia will share intelligence, case theories and investigative techniques to better coordinate investigations across international borders, thanks to a new cooperation agreement signed this week.
The Multilateral Mutual Assistance and Cooperation Framework for Competition Authorities (MMAC), was signed virtually by the US Department of Justice, US Federal Trade Commission, the UK Competition and Markets Authority, the New Zealand Commerce Commission, the Competition Bureau Canada and the ACCC and comes into effect on 2 September 2020.
“The global economy is increasingly interconnected and many large companies, especially in the digital economy, now operate internationally. Competition regulators have to work together to ensure the companies comply with competition and consumer laws,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
“Working more deeply with the highly-experienced competition investigators in other countries, who are often dealing with the same companies or industries, will greatly assist in gathering evidence across borders.”
“We expect this cooperation will particularly benefit our existing and ongoing investigations of digital platforms, which are being closely watched by many agencies globally,” Mr Sims said.
“Tackling anti-competitive conduct by multinational companies is critical to national economies and this international cooperation will benefit consumers and businesses in Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand.”
The ACCC has already been cooperating closely with other competition agencies within the framework of the OECD and International Competition Network for over 20 years, for example on international shipping cartel matters.
“The new cooperation agreement complements our existing formal and informal cooperation agreements with competition agencies in the US, Canada and NZ. It will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of competition investigations that span multiple jurisdictions,” Mr Sims said.
In April 2019, the ACCC signed a cooperation agreement with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat cartels and other anti-competitive behaviour.
The MMAC is a memorandum of understanding that will improve coordinated and pro-active informal cooperation and assistance between all the parties. The framework includes a template ‘Model Agreement’ that the agencies can use to establish cooperation arrangements focused on investigative assistance such as the provision of mutual assistance, sharing of confidential information, executing searches and seizures and cross-border evidence gathering.
Further information will be available at the ACCC’s Treaties & agreements page.
Release number: 185/20ACCC Infocentre: Use this form to make a general enquiry.
Media enquiries: Media team – 1300 138 917
Audience

Media

Topics

International activities