Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Ltd.

Question: Discuss about the Case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Ltd. Answer: The Strength of the Case There are a number of prohibitions that section 18 of the Australian ConsumerLaw forbids, and this includes advertising a product through the provision of misleading or deceptive facts. The reason that makes thelaw to prohibit misleading advertisements is because of the capability of the advertisements to distort the purchasing choices of consumers, and this causes harm to them. Additionally, the use of misleading information and facts has the capability of frustrating competition within the market, and this is because consumers will purchase products that are of low quality and ones that do not have the features and characteristics that have been advertised. Furthermore, misleading advertisements have the capability of increasing unwanted costs to the consumer, and this is because they may enter into a contractual relationship that is not beneficial to them, or incur costs due to the purchase of products that do not exist in the manner which they are represented. The 2013 case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Ltd, the court was of the opinion that engaging in misleading or deceptive advertisements was illegal and a direct violation of section 18 of the consumer law. This is despite then existence of a disclaimer, whose intention is to protect the liability of an advertiser regarding the advertised product. Furthermore, for purposes of deterring people from engaging in false advertisement, the High Court argues that there is a need coming up with very punitive penalties that transcends above the cost of doing business. Furthermore, while determining this case, the court gave a definition of a misleading advertisement as one in which the words contained in the adverts are a misrepresentation of the actual product, and they have had the effects of misleading consumers. In the case above, Crazy J obviously violated the provisions of s18 of the Consumer Law. This is because of its promotional campaign that alleged the prices of the mobile phones handled by the company were available for free. It is important to note that in as much as the advertisements were carried out last year, ACCCC has a strong case against Crazy J because section 236 (2) of the Australian ConsumerLaw denotes that a legislative action can be taken against a trader or an advertiser within 6 years after the illegal action by the trader. On this note, ACCC has a strong case against Crazy J. Bait Advertisement Section 35 of the Australian Consumer Law provides a definition on what bait advertisement is. Under this section, the law denotes that a person should not advertise or offer a product or service at a lower price if he would not have the capability of supplying the products at the given price, for the identified period, and in a reasonable and acceptable quantity. On this note, while offering the products and services at the price, there is a need of considering the nature of market that he is operating at, and the type of advertisement that he is carrying out. For purposes of avoiding bait advertisement, the advertiser has to state clearly whether the prices on offer are for a limited period of time, and he has to identify the period under consideration. However, it is important to note that if the products will not be available at the advertised price and for the period that is highlighted, chances are high that the trader will be charged for bait advertisement. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that Crazy J engaged in bait advertisements because he did not provide the time frame of his offer, and the nature of the industry in which he operates, cannot sale phone products at $0. This advertisement was a direct violation of section 35 of the Australian Consumer Law. S.29 of the Australian Consumer Law Section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law is against false representation through the identification of particular and specific activities. For instance, under section 29 (1i), the law denotes that an individual must not make a false representation of the price of his products and services. In the 2004 case of Butcher v Lachlan, the court was of the opinions that even a slight representation of prices of the products and services, would amount to a violation of section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. In the case above, there was a violation of section 29 of the law, because Crazy J did not disclose the high prices that consumers would incur while using the particular phone; hence the price of the phone was actually not 0 $ the way Crazy J asserted. Furthermore, the industry in which Crazy J was operating under is high cost; hence the 0$ price is unreasonable and unacceptable. Furthermore, the price of 0 was misleading, and this is against the principles established in the 1988 case of Re Henjo Pty Limited, where the court denoted that any action which would lead to the misleading of a consumer is unacceptable and illegal. On this note, Crazy J has violated s 29 of the Australian Consumer Law through the provision of misleading prices; hence, he should be charged based on this law. Difference between s 29 and 18 of the Australian Consumer Law S 18 of the law contains general provisions that guide traders on making misleading and false advertisements. On this note, most of the legal proceedings that are brought through citing this law are always led to the emergence of civil liabilities. The provision in section 18 is general in scope. On the other hand, the provisions of s 29 are very specific and they identify the particular misleading actions and activities that a trader can engage in. It prohibits particular practices, and a person who is charged by this law, can be penalized criminally, or he can receive civil liabilities. References Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Ltd (2013) Butcher v Lachlan (2004) Re Henjo Pty Limited (1988) Australian Consumer Law section 18 Australian Consumer Law section 29 Australian Consumer Law section 35