When the Fine Print Isn’t Fine At All

Make an appointment

In a recent High Court case, the Court was asked to determine whether fine print in an advertisement was enough to prevent an advertisement from being misleading to consumers.

For more than a year TPG ran an advertising campaign that offered ADSL2+ for the cost of $29.99 a month.

Contact Tony

The offer was displayed quite prominently and clearly to the audience, less prominently the advertisement also stated that the offer was only available when it was bundled with a home phone service from TPG, at a cost of $30.00 per month.

Upon receiving complaints about the nature of the advertisement, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) initiated legal proceedings that alleged the advertisement was misleading and deceptive, and contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and s 18 of Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC objected to the disparity between the use of a large prominent headline offering unlimited ADSL2+ for $29.99 per month, and the less prominent qualifying terms. These terms added significant costs to the offer, requiring that a consumer also bundle a home telephone for an additional $30 per month, pay a single setup fee of $129.95, and also make a $20 deposit for a telephone.

The ACCC further alleged that TPG failed to properly specify a minimum price for the full offer, in breach of section 53C(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act.

In the first instance, Federal Court ordered that TPG pay a $2 million fine. On appeal in the Full Federal Court in December 2012, that fine was reduced significantly to $50,000. Later in December 2013, the High Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the original fine of $2 million.

In its decision, the High Court upheld the initial judges findings, noting that the advertisements created a dominant message, namely that TPG offered ADSL2+ for $29.99 a month, that when viewed did not properly convey the actual offer.

The High Court also found that the initial thrust of the advertisement was misleading and that even if, as argued by TPG, a consumer was able to ascertain the actual price prior to signing up for the deal, it did not discount the fact that the advertisement was misleading. The High Court reiterated that a violation of s 52 did not require financial harm, it only requires that a company engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

 

If you have any queries regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us at Big Law Solicitors on (07) 3482 6999 or email us at mail@biglaw.com.au.

At Big Law we provide holistic legal solutions to legal matters.

Information & Helpful Tips

breach parenting order

What to Do If Your Ex-Partner Breaches a Parenting Plan or Order?

| Family Law, Podcasts | No Comments
In this podcast, Matt Stimpson explains the impact of COVID-19 to ongoing Family Law matters.... listen to the podcast
Family Law

Understanding the Family Law Court’s PPP500 Process for Asset Pools of $500,000 or Less

| Family Law | No Comments
When a couple separates one of the most difficult things to do is work out the best and fairest way to divide the assets accrued during the relationship.
family law

Need to Make an Urgent Application to the Family Law Courts During COVID-19?

| Family Law | No Comments
While Australia now appears to be through the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic and some aspects of society prepare to return to normal routines, Australia’s court system continues to operate…