2016 Australian Consumer Law Update – Looking Forward , Looking Back.

13 March, 2016

 

1 INTRODUCTION

 

We are pleased to provide you with our annual review of consumer law in Australia. As we predicted at the beginning of 2015 (in our 2015 Consumer Law Update, available here), the past 12 months have proven to be a busy time in the consumer law space, with a number of significant cases brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against businesses for misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct. The next 12 months are shaping up to be just as busy, with a review of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) scheduled to be conducted by Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand, as well as a number of important cases to watch.

 

This update provides highlights of these developments, first taking a look back at what happened in the consumer law area in 2015, and then looking forward to what we may expect in 2016. In particular, this update includes:

 

1  An analysis of the significant consumer law developments in 2015, including:

 

–  significant cases from 2015 in the area of misleading or deceptive conduct (some cases also raise

unconscionable conduct);

–  a summary table of notable penalties issued in 2015 for consumer law breaches; and

–  the ACCC’s areas of focus in 2015.

 

2  Our predictions as to the key consumer law developments in 2016, including:

 

–  the areas that are likely to be on the ACCC’s radar; and

–  significant consumer law cases to watch. 

 

2 LOOKING BACK: 2015 IN REVIEW

 

2.1 What did the ACCC focus on in 2015?

 

On 20 March 2015, Rod Sims, Chairman of the ACCC, gave a speech at the National Consumer Congress outlining the ACCC’s priorities for 2015. In particular, he identified conduct which results in substantial consumer harm or otherwise targets vulnerable consumer groups (among others) as an issue of significant public interest and as a priority for the ACCC in 2015. In the paragraphs that follow, we take a look at the areas of focus for the ACCC in 2015 and the ACCC’s efforts to target these areas.

 

Truth in advertising

 

• ACCC continues to focus on truth in advertising

 

Following on from its successful action against Coles for claims in relation to its ‘freshly baked’ bread,1 the ACCC identified truth in advertising as an area of continued focus for 2015. The ACCC was particularly concerned with claims by large businesses which could impact a significant number of consumers, as well as conduct which was at risk of becoming widespread without ACCC intervention. In pursuit of this aim, the ACCC:

 

Succeeded in Federal Court proceedings against Virgin and Jetstar in relation to the airlines’ ‘drip pricing’ practices2 (discussed in section 2.2 below). Drip pricing involves use of a ‘headline price’ at the beginning of an online purchase, followed by additional charges (which are usually compulsory in order to complete the purchase) being incrementally disclosed or ‘dripped’.

 

The ACCC has reported that following this decision, the use of drip pricing practices in online booking services had reduced.3

Succeeded in proceedings against group buying website Spreets, which offered ‘daily deals’ or vouchers for discounted goods or services.4 The ACCC established that Spreets had made false or misleading representations about the price of certain deals, consumers’ ability to redeem vouchers, and consumers’ rights to a refund.

 

Succeeded in proceedings against Darling Downs Fresh Eggs, who was ordered to pay a $250,000 penalty for marketing and labelling its eggs as ‘free range’ when in fact the laying hens never had access to the outdoors.5 The ACCC also released a guide to provide clarity on their approach to enforcing the misleading conduct provisions of the ACL in the context of free range egg claims. This follows a number of investigations and court actions in recent years against egg suppliers who were alleged to be misleading consumers with free range claims.

 

Carbon tax repeal and energy company claims

 

• ACCC seeks to ensure carbon tax cost savings are passed onto consumers

 

The ACCC has continued its focus on ensuring that savings from the repeal of the carbon tax are passed onto consumers, culminating in the release of its carbon tax price reduction report in July 2015.6 The ACCC reported that it was satisfied that all electricity and gas suppliers had passed their cost savings onto customers and that it was ‘pleased with the high levels of compliance with the price reduction obligation’.7 No enforcement action was taken during the course of its monitoring role, which began on 1 March 2014.

 

The ACCC did, however, take action against a handful of energy retailers for misleading sales tactics. EnergyAustralia was ordered by the Federal Court to pay penalties of $1 million in relation to its practice of cold calling consumers, advising that they would be sent information so that they could consider signing up to an energy agreement, and subsequently treating consumers as having already entered into such an agreement.8 In separate actions, Origin Energy and Simply Energy were also required to pay penalties in relation to unlawful door-to-door sales tactics.9

 

ACCC scam disruption project

 

• ACCC targets frauds and scams which are costing Australians millions

 

Following on from the ACCC’s 2014 Targeting Scams Report,10 the ACCC has continued its work with intermediaries such as dating sites and financial institutions to make it harder for scammers to connect with victims. The ACCC also launched its updated ScamWatch website (https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/) and issued a number of scam warnings in 2015. The ACCC was particularly concerned to target scams exploiting vulnerable consumers, such as Indigenous consumers, older consumers and recent migrants. Some examples of ACCC action over the last year include:

 

• issuing a public warning about NBN scams and urged consumers and businesses to watch out for fraudsters asking for financial details or spruiking equipment as the rollout of the NBN progresses;11
• issuing a public warning urging visa holders and Australian citizens to guard against fraudulent phone calls demanding up-front fees to resubmit allegedly incorrect immigration forms to avoid deportation;12 and
• launching the ‘Your Rights Mob’ Facebook page to inform Indigenous consumers how to spot a scam and how to protect themselves. It urged Indigenous consumers to be wary of requests made over the internet for personal information or money.13
• Protecting vulnerable consumers

 

• ACCC sues private colleges regarding misleading practices

 

Another example of the ACCC’s efforts to protect vulnerable consumers in 2015 was the ACCC’s pursuit of numerous private colleges for unfair, misleading and unconscionable conduct. In particular, the ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings alleging that private colleges, including Unique International,14 Phoenix15 and Empower,16 tricked disadvantaged and disabled students into signing up for diploma courses based on a representation that the courses would be free, resulting in students unknowingly incurring significant debts to the government. The ACCC also alleges that students were offered free laptops to manipulate them into enrolling, made to sign forms they could not read or understand, and that many students were enrolled into online courses despite lacking appropriate numeracy, literacy or computer skills.

 

Consumer protection in the health sector

 

• ACCC targets misleading information in the health sector
   

The ACCC identified consumer issues in the health sector, including false, misleading and potentially harmful

representations, as a priority for 2015. In pursuit of this aim, the ACCC:

 

• succeeded in proceedings against Reckitt Benckiser alleging false and misleading claims in relation to its Nurofen specific pain products. The Federal Court found that Reckitt Benckiser had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing on its packaging and website that those products were each formulated to treat a specific type of pain, when in fact each product contained the same active ingredient and was no more effective in treating that kind of pain as any of the other Nurofen products;17 and
• successfully brought proceedings against Homeopathy Plus! Australia Limited (Homeopathy Plus) and its sole director, Ms Frances Sheffield, for false or misleading statements published in a series of articles on the Homeopathy Plus website. The articles made a number of representations about the efficacy of the whooping cough vaccine, including that it was ‘short lived, unreliable’ and ‘largely ineffective in protecting against whooping cough’.18 In October 2015, the Federal Court ordered penalties of $115,000 against Homeopathy Plus and $23,000 against Ms Sheffield as well as granting injunctive relief. In making these orders, the Court noted that the primary concern arising from the representations was ‘the potential to divert consumes from immunising themselves and those in their care, with potential risks to their health and the broader community’.19

 

Significant consumer law cases in 2015

 

Another Harvey Norman franchisee fined for misleading customers as to guarantee rights

 

• Retailers must not mislead consumers about consumer guarantee rights

 

The ACCC successfully brought proceedings against a Harvey Norman franchisee, Bunavit Pty Ltd, for misleading and deceptive conduct. The court found that the franchisee breached its obligations under the consumer law to offer a repair, replacement or refund for products of unacceptable quality, by telling customers with faulty products that Harvey Norman could not assist them without payment or was not obliged to provide a remedy. In January 2016, the Federal Court ordered the Harvey Norman franchisee pay a penalty of $52,000 in relation to the conduct.20

 

The ACCC was pleased with the result, with its acting chairman Michael Schaper labelling the finding “a timely reminder to all businesses, whether large or small, that they must not mislead consumers about consumer guarantee rights under the Australian Consumer Law”.21 The ACCC has now obtained penalty orders totalling $286,000 against ten Harvey Norman franchisees in respect of false or misleading representations regarding consumer guarantees.

 

Jetstar and Virgin misled consumers with ‘drip pricing’

 

• Timely reminder for online retailers to avoid drip pricing practices

 

The Federal Court decision in proceedings commenced by the ACCC against Jetstar and Virgin provides clarification on the law around the practice known as ‘drip pricing’, where additional fees and charges are incrementally disclosed in an online booking process. The ACCC is particularly concerned about this conduct as consumers can end up paying more than the advertised price or more than they realised.

 

The Federal Court found that Jetstar and Virgin engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to their 2014 mobile sites as well as Jetstar’s 2013 website for failing to adequately disclose a Booking and Service Fee that was charged on bookings paid for using common payment methods.22 Relevantly, the Booking and Service Fee was only disclosed to consumers once they had moved through a number of stages in the booking process.

 

This case serves as a warning to online retailers to ensure advertised prices include all additional fees and charges so that consumers can easily compare and choose the best price. 

 

Coles admits engaging in unconscionable conduct with suppliers

• ACCC maintains focus on conduct between supermarkets and suppliers

 

The ACCC commenced proceedings against Coles, alleging that it had engaged in unconscionable conduct in its

dealings with its suppliers by:

 

• misleading suppliers and using undue pressure to extract rebate payments from them under the Coles’ Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) program; and
• demanding a variety of payments from suppliers, including payments for ‘profit gaps’, waste and fines for alleged short or late deliveries, where this had not been the subject of prior agreement with the suppliers.23

 

In reaching a settlement of the proceedings, Coles admitted that it had engaged in unconscionable conduct with respect to its suppliers. In ordering Coles (by consent) to pay penalties totalling $10 million, the Court emphasised the serious, deliberate and repeated nature of Coles’ misconduct and noted the great disparity in bargaining power between Coles and its suppliers.

 

Coles also provided a court enforceable undertaking to the ACCC to establish a formal process, overseen by former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, to provide options for redress for over 200 suppliers referred to in the proceedings. This resulted in Coles refunding $12 million to suppliers in June 2015.

 

This emphasises that while negotiations between suppliers and retailers can be robust, care must be taken where there is a significant disparity in bargaining power between the parties.

 

Chrisco lay-by agreements held to include unfair contract terms

 

• ‘Opt-out’ requirement for direct debits unfair where lay-by already paid for

 

The ACCC was successful in proceedings against Christmas-hamper supplier Chrisco, alleging that the company included unfair contract term in lay-by agreements which required customers to ‘opt out’ in order to avoid having further payments automatically deducted by Chrisco after their lay-by had been paid for.24 In concluding that the term was unfair, the Court held that the term caused a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations between Chrisco and its customers.

 

The Court also found that Chrisco made a false or misleading representation to consumers that they could not cancel their lay-by agreement after making their final payment, when the ACL provides that consumers have the right to terminate a lay-by agreement at any time before delivery of the goods.

 

The conduct was brought to the attention of the ACCC by the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and is an example of the ACCC’s increased focus on consumer protection in vulnerable communities. It is an important reminder for retailers using direct debit arrangements that these arrangements must operate fairly. 

 

2.3 Notable consumer law penalties in 2015

 

Below are some of the more notable penalty orders made in 2015 in the area of misleading or deceptive conduct.25 

 

ACTION

DAMAGES/PENALTIES

RELEVANT FACTORS

 

Coles: unconscionable conduct in dealings with suppliers26

 

• $10 million – pecuniary penalty •
• Refunded $12 million to suppliers in accordance with • undertaking

 

• Conduct was ‘serious, deliberate and repeated’
• Coles misused its bargaining power and did not act in good conscience 

 

Coles: false or misleading representations/conduct in relation ‘Baked Today’ and ‘Freshly Baked’ bread 27

 

• $2.5 million – pecuniary penalty

 

• Potential loss of customers for competitors
• Significant number of individual contraventions (85 million sales of relevant products)
• Coles’ size and financial position 

 

Origin Energy: unconscionable conduct and false/misleading representations in door-to-door selling28

 

• $2 million – pecuniary penalty • (Origin Energy)
• $325,000 – pecuniary penalty • (sales company) 

 

• Deliberateness of the sales representatives’ behaviour

• Deterrence 

 

EnergyAustralia: misleading or deceptive conduct/representations in gas and electricity plan sales29

 

• $1 million – pecuniary penalty • (EnergyAustralia)
• $100,000 – pecuniary penalty • (telemarketing company) 

 

• Past conduct of EnergyAustralia and its telemarketers

• Mitigated by EnergyAustralia taking action to stop and remedy infringing conduct and cooperating with the ACCC 

 

Spreets: misleading and deceptive conduct/representations about group buying deals30

 

• $600,000 – pecuniary penalty 

 

• Seriousness of the contraventions 
• Systemic nature of the contravening conduct within the Respondent company
• Deterrence
• Spreets’ size and financial position 

 

Actrol Parts: misleading or deceptive conduct/representations by attributing price increases to the carbon tax31

 

• $520,000 – pecuniary penalty

 

• Participation of senior staff in contravening conduct
• Deterrence
• Mitigated by willingness of company to cooperate 

 

South East Melbourne Cleaning: unconscionable conduct and making false/misleading representations in relation to franchise agreements32

 

• $500,000 – pecuniary penalty

 

• Contraventions were serious and showed blatant disregard for franchisee’s rights and interests 
• Deterrence

 

Fisher & Paykel: false or misleading representations about extended warranties 33

 

• $400,000 – pecuniary penalty

 

 

• Seriousness and significance of the contraventions
• large number of consumers affected 

 

Origin Energy: false or misleading representations regarding energy plan discounts34

 

• $325,000 – pecuniary penalty 

 

• Size and reputation of Origin Energy meant consumers were likely to rely on accuracy of their statements
• Deterrence

 

Uncle Tobys: alleged false or misleading representations regarding protein content of oat products35

 

• $32,400 – for 3 infringement notices 

 

• Disclaimers not sufficient to correct dominant misleading impression 

 

Arnott’s: alleged false or misleading representations regarding fat content of Shapes Light & Crispy product as compared with other products36

 

•  $51,000 – for 5 infringement notices 

 

• Comparisons were inaccurate and not based on meaningful benchmark
• Misleading representations related to healthy eating 

 

3 LOOKING FORWARD: 2016 PREDICTIONS

 

3.1 Review of the Australian Consumer Law

 

A big ticket item on the agenda for 2016 is the review of the ACL by Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ).

 

This is the first review of the ACL since its implementation (in its current form) in January 2011. Once the review is completed, the final report is expected to be released in March 2017. In order to assess the enforcement and administration arrangements of the ACL, the review will, among other things:

 

• consider the effectiveness of the ACL, including general prohibitions (misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and unfair terms in consumer contracts), prohibitions against specific ‘unfair practices’, enforcement powers and statutory consumer guarantees; and
• evaluate the flexibility of the ACL to respond to new and emerging issues.

 

In his keynote presentation at the Australasian Consumer Law Roundtable 2015,37 ACCC Chairman Rod Sims indicated

that the ACCC would be suggesting improvements to the following areas (among others) as part of the CAANZ review:

 

• Penalties: The ACCC is expected to recommend an increase to the maximum pecuniary penalties available, in order to provide a stronger deterrence factor. Currently, the maximum penalty for each breach of the ACL is $1.1 million for a corporation or $220,000 for an individual. The ACCC has also suggested that there is a ‘strong case’ in favour of imposing pecuniary penalties for misleading and deceptive conduct (section 18 of the ACL).
• Sharing economy platforms: Sharing economy platforms such as Uber and Airbnb have been a hot topic in recent times, and this growing area has not escaped the attention of the ACCC. The ACCC has stated that the review provides an opportunity to consider whether the existing ACL provisions sufficiently address any consumer protection issues arising from these platforms.
• Phoenix companies: The ACCC believes that there is scope to consider how the ACL can provide redress for consumers and business customers for breaches of the ACL involved when a company collapses due to insolvency only to start up again under a different business name while avoiding the liabilities of the old company.

 

3.2 ACCC Priorities for 2016

 

On 23 February 2016, Rod Sims, Chairman of the ACCC, delivered his annual address outlining the ACCC’s priorities for 2016.38 In particular, he identified a number of consumer issues which will remain an ongoing focus for the ACCC, as well as several new areas that the ACCC will be prioritising in the next 12 months, including:39

 

Vulnerable consumers: The ACCC will ensure that protection of vulnerable consumers, including the elderly and those who have recently immigrated to Australia, continues to be a focus for 2016. The ACCC has also elevated the issue of Indigenous consumer protection to an ‘enduring priority’, saying that it ‘will always prioritise its work’ to protect these consumers and assist them to enforce their consumer rights.

 

Health: Consumer protection in the health and medical sector will also continue to be a priority in 2016. In particular, the ACCC will be targeting disclosure practices, as well as misleading representations in relation to particular food products and also in the private health insurance industry.

 

Product safety: Products which have the ‘potential to cause serious harm to consumers’ will remain an ongoing priority for the ACCC in 2016. Following its very recent victory in which the Federal Court ordered Woolworths Ltd to pay $3 million in penalties for safety related breaches of the ACL in relation to the sale of a deep fryer, safety matches, drain cleaner and a folding stool,40 the ACCC will continue to ensure retailers are vigilant in detecting and removing unsafe products from their stores. 

 

Consumer guarantees: In previous years the ACCC has focused on representations made by large companies concerning the effect of express or extended warranties, particularly as they relate to protections already provided under the ACL. Rod Sims has said that in 2016, this will re-emerge as a priority, reflecting ‘the important foundation consumer guarantees play in consumer protection.’

 

Small Business: Although the ACCC has always prioritised small business, in 2016 it has stated that it will be ‘more likely to take enforcement action against larger companies ahead of small businesses’. The ACCC said this is because larger companies have a ‘disproportionate influence on market place behaviour’, and often act as a benchmark for what is perceived as acceptable behaviour. Specifically, the ACCC will be looking to protect small businesses by targeting unfair contract terms and enforcing codes of conduct in a number of sectors (including the food and grocery, horticulture and franchising areas).

New car retailing: Following its investigation into the VW emissions scandal (which will be completed shortly), the ACCC is focusing on ensuring retailers meet their legal obligations to ensure that, after they are sold, cars remain fit for purpose, free from defects and as durable as a reasonable customer would expect.

 

Scams: In 2016, the ACCC will be prioritising scams, and in particular, relationship scams (which accounted for 2,620 Australians reporting that they lost almost $23 million in 2015).41

 

3.3 Cases to watch in 2016

 

ACCC investigation into Volkswagen emissions testing regime

 

In October 2015, the ACCC announced its investigation of Volkswagen Group for possible use of ‘defeat devices’.42 It is alleged that software installed in Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda vehicles were used to defeat emission testing regimes and make vehicles perform better in testing conditions compared to real world operations. The alleged behaviour is a clear example of issues relating to truth in advertising, which was a priority concern for the ACCC in 2015 and will continue in 2016.

 

The ACCC has previously stated that it is pressing Volkswagen Australia to clarify if it has supplied cars or car components into the Australian market that use defeat devices and that it is working with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to determine the impact on consumers. It is expected that the ACCC will provide a further update to its investigations later this year.

 

ACCC alleges Woolworths engaged in unconscionable conduct in supplier dealings

 

Continuing its scrutiny of alleged unconscionable conduct by major supermarket chains in dealings with suppliers, the ACCC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against Woolworths.43

 

The ACCC has alleged that Woolworths engaged in unconscionable conduct in dealings with its suppliers in seeking to obtain payments from a group of 821 ‘Tier B’ supermarket suppliers to reduce its expected half-year gross profit shortfall by 31 December 2014. Payments ranged from $4,291 to $1.4 million. The ACCC alleges that these requests were made in circumstances where Woolworths was in a substantially stronger bargaining position than the suppliers, did not have a contractual entitlement to seek the payments, and either knew it did not have, or was indifferent to whether it had, a legitimate basis for requesting a payment from the Tier B supplier.

 

ACCC takes action in relation to unconscionable conduct in selling products to Indigenous communities

 

Unsolicited selling and Indigenous consumer protection continue to be priority areas for the ACCC in 2016, as shown by the ACCC action in the Federal Court against FDRA and its shareholder and director Jackson Anni.44 

 

From September 2014, Mr Anni and sales representatives acting on behalf of FDRA entered into agreements with 600 Indigenous consumers in remote communities. The ACCC alleges that in the course of making these agreements, Mr Anni and the other sales representatives made false and misleading representations that the tablets were iPads, that they contained thousands of games, and that consumers were required to pay an additional fee for a warranty. The ACCC also alleges that given the consumers’ poor understanding of English and of commercial transactions, and by – in some circumstances – taking possession of the consumers’ bank cards to make cash withdrawals to obtain payment, FDRA also acted unconscionably. 

 

1Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 330.

2Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited [2015] FCA 1263.

3Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ‘Court finds that Jetstar and Virgin Australia engaged in misleading “drip pricing” practices’, Media Release, 17 November 2015 (accessible here).

4Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Spreets Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 382.

5Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v RL Adams Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1016.

6Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Report to the Minister pursuant to s 60J of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, July 2015 (accessible here).

7Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Report to the Minister pursuant to s 60J of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, July 2015 (accessible here) page 2. 

8Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v EnergyAustralia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 274.
9Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Origin Energy Electricity Limited [2015] FCA 278; Australian Competition and Consumer

Commission, ‘Simply Energy pays $20,400 penalty for alleged misleading door-to-door sales’, Media Release, 11 February 2015 (accessible here). 10ACCC, Targeting scams: Report of the ACCC on scams activity 2014, May 2015 (accessible here).
11ACCC media release, ‘Beware of NBN scams’, 13 March 2015 (accessible here).
12ACCC media release, ‘Hang up on an immigration scam’, 23 April 2015 (accessible here).

13ACCC media release, ‘ACCC launches “Your Rights Mob” Facebook page for Indigenous consumers’, 28 July 2015 (accessible here; Facebook page accessible here).

14ACCC media release, ‘ACCC takes action against Unique International College following joint investigation with NSW Fair Trading’, 27 October 2015 (accessible here).

15ACCC media release, ‘ACCC takes action against Phoenix following joint investigation with NSW Fair Trading’, 24 November 2015 (accessible here). 16ACCC media release, ‘ACCC takes action against Empower Institute following joint investigation with NSW Fair Trading’, 9 December 2015 (accessible

here). 

17Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 1408. 18Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1412.
19Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 1090 at [39]. 20Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bunavit Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 6.

21ACCC media release, ‘Harvey Norman franchisee ordered to pay penalties of $52,000 for false or misleading representations about consumer rights’, 14 January 2016 (accessible here).

22Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited [2015] FCA 1263. 

23Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405.

24Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited [2015] FCA 1204. 

25This is in addition to those cases discussed at 2.1 and 2.2 above.

26Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405.

27Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 330.

28Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Origin Energy Electricity Limited [2015] FCA 278.

29Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v EnergyAustralia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 274.

30Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Spreets Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 382.

31Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Actrol Parts Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 312.

32Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v South East Melbourne Cleaning Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Coverall Cleaning Concepts South East Melbourne Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 257.

33Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1393.

34Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Origin Energy Limited [2015] FCA 55.
35ACCC media release, ‘Uncle Tobys (Cereal Partners Australia) pays $32,400 in penalties for alleged false or misleading representations about UncleTobys oats’, 26 November 2015 (accessible here).
36ACCC media release, ‘Arnott's pays $51,000 for alleged misleading claims about the saturated fat content of Shapes’, 23 November 2015 (accessible here). 

37ACCC media release, ‘Keynote Presentation: Australasian Consumer Law Roundtable 2015’, 1 December 2015 (accessible here).
38 ACCC media release, ‘ACCC highlights cartels, Indigenous consumer protection, and agriculture in 2016 priorities’, 23 February 2016 (accessible here).

39 ACCC speeches, ‘ACCC compliance and enforcement priorities for 2016’, 23 February 2016 (accessible here).
40 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Limited [2016] FCA 44. 

41 ACCC media release, ‘$22.7 million lost to dating scams in 2015’, 12 February 2016 (accessible here).

42ACCC media release, ‘ACCC Chairman discusses VW, mergers and industrial relations’, 13 October 2015 (accessible here).

43ACCC media release, ‘ACCC takes action against Woolworths for alleged unconscionable conduct towards supermarket suppliers’, 10 December 2015 (accessible here).

44ACCC media release, ‘ACCC takes action against FDRA for alleged consumer law breaches in Aboriginal communities’, 8 January 2016 (accessible here). 

 

 

For further information, please contact:

 

Rebekah Gay, Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills
rebekah.gay@hsf.com