Ever wondered what the priorities of the ACCC are? Well in this episode of Consumer Law Bites you get Lisk's real time reactions to seeing the ACCC's 2025 Compliance and Enforcement Priorities.
In this episode, you with hear Lisk stumble his way through the various priority and focus areas from his kitchen with its poor acoustic qualities and horrible echo. It's a great reminder that even with a PhD, some people just aren't good at things.
Want to check out the priorities yourself? Head over to this website: www.accc.gov.au/about-us/accc-priorities/compliance-and-enforcement-priorities
What do you think Keeping Up with the Consumer Law Bites? Got an idea for a topic we should tackle? Send us a message on Instagram at @KUWTCL or LinkedIn.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer.
How often do you sit down to read the Australian Consumer Law? We do it all the time because it brings some excitement to our boring lawyer lives. If you're a business operator it might be a good idea to give it a read.
In this episode Dr Joel Lisk keeps you up with the consumer law events associated with Booktopia and their non-compliant practices.
Want more details? Of course:
What do you think of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law Bites? Got an idea for a topic we should tackle? Send us a message on Instagram @kuwtcl.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer.
Welcome to Keeping Up with the Consumer Law Bites - where we keep you up with the Australian Consumer Law with smaller, bite sized episodes.
Sometimes it is important to remember that the Australian Consumer Law isn't a flower. It isn't there one moment and gone the next, it is an actual Australian law and it applies all the time. In 2024, two florists learnt this the expensive way. Bloomex was ordered to pay a $1 million penalty for misleading and false representations on its website. Meg's Flowers was also ordered to pay a $1 million for misleading representations.
Join half of your usual Keeping Up with the Consumer Law team for a bite sized recap of the facts and the conduct.
Want the details of the proceedings?
What do you think of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law Bites? Got an idea for a topic we should tackle? Send us a message on Instagram @kuwtcl.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer.
On February 8, Keeping Up with the Consumer Law went live and in person at The Suburban Brew in Adelaide. In this recording of that event, join regular hosts Joel Grieger and Joel Lisk as they tackle the big consumer law issues with three expert guests; Alexandra Douvartzidis, Katherine Temple and Dr Mark Giancaspro.
About Our Expert Guests Alexandra Douvartzidis. Alexandra is a Senior Associate in the Civil and Commercial Litigation team at HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (HWLE) in Adelaide. Alexandra predominately practises in the areas of: civil, competition and consumer law, regulatory and governance investigations and enforcement actions, defamation & media law, intellectual property law, administrative law and government. Alexandra was awarded the Professional Staff award for HWLE for 2022 and the Media & Telecommunications prize in the Lawyers Weekly 30 Under 30 Awards (2021). Alexandra is also a casual academic at Flinders University teaching Contract Law & Advanced Competition Law.
Dr Mark Giancaspro. Mark is a Senior Lecturer and practising commercial lawyer at the University of Adelaide Law School. He specialises in contract law, consumer law, and sports law, and regularly provides training and education to law firms and industry bodies in Australia and around the world. His research focusses on the formation and renegotiation of contracts, smart contracts, and consumer protection. Mark has authored a suite of books and articles on commercial law and is a routinely invited guest speaker. He is a member of the Law Council of Australia, the ACCC Small Business and Franchising Consultative Committee, the Australian Commercial Law Association, the International Association of Consumer Law, and the Adelaide Law School’s Research Unit on the Regulation of Commerce, Corporations, Insolvency and Taxation (ROCCIT).
Katherine Temple. Since her admission to practice in 2011, Katherine has worked in private practice and at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Katherine was also the Director of Policy and Campaigns for Consumer Action Law Centre, leading a team of legal and policy experts who contributed to significant reforms in consumer protection laws. Katherine has regularly appeared in the media to discuss consumer law and finance issues, including interviews with the Australian Financial Review, 7.30 Report and A Current Affair. Katherine has been a member of various panels and forums, including ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel and the RBA’s Payments Consultation Group. Her experience is primarily in the practice of consumer protection and financial services laws. Katherine provides advice to businesses about complying with their regulatory obligations and engaging fairly with consumers. Katherine also regularly provides advice to startups about whether a credit or financial services licence is required for their business, and potential regulatory risks. Katherine completed a Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice (First Class Honours) and a Bachelor of International Studies at Flinders University. Katherine returned to Holley Nethercote as a Senior Associate in 2022.
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Season 1 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law was supported by The Law Foundation of South Australia Inc.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Have you missed the Joels ramble on about consumer law? Well don’t we have a massive end of year surprise for you: the Keeping Up with the Consumer Law Extravaganza! In this episode Joel Grieger and Joel Lisk try to run through some of the major consumer law news that has happened since the last episode of the 2023 season from August.
So, what do the Joels cover? Well, in 23 minutes they cover the ACCC’s action against Qantas for alleged ghost flights, changes to unfair contract term laws, an action against a Jeep distributor for poor consumer compliant management, and a massive penalty for a major power tool distributor for violating competition laws.
Before signing off for 2023, the Joels want to say a massive thank you to you, our audience for downloading our episodes and sharing our passion for the consumer law and how it works. Keep an eye out for the 2024 Season.
Do you want to read more about this episode’s content? More information is below:
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
This Podcast is supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Welcome to episode 15 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, the last episode of Season 1. In this episode we are joined by Nick Heys, Executive Director of Coordination and Strategy at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to talk through a range of topics from how the ACCC select the matters they pursue, greenwashing and influencers.
This is the fifteenth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to follow up on a couple of the topics covered in this episode?
Want to share your thoughts on the ACCC’s Greenwashing Guidance? Head over to https://consultation.accc.gov.au/accc/environmental-and-sustainability-guidance/ before 15 September 2023.
Lisk and Grieger also want to pass on their massive thanks for listening to Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. We have really appreciated your support and engagement over the course of this first season and look forward to keeping you up with the consumer law in the future.
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
If life is like a box of chocolates, then wealth is like a pyramid. Pyramids have played an important part in the history of human kind – the Great Pyramids of Giza, the 5 food groups, the illuminati. But some aren’t so joyfully received and are even banned by the Australian Consumer Law.
In this episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, Grieger tries to walk us through one of the more interesting components of the Australian Consumer Law; the prohibition of pyramid schemes. Grieger introduces the ill-fated TVI Express scheme, a scheme the ACCC described as a scam. We aren’t going to give any more away here, give the episode a listen to be entirely confused by the scheme.
This is the fourteenth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to learn more about this case? Check out some of the details here:
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
The Australian Consumer Law can be useful for a range of circumstances, even extremely personal ones. In Episode 13 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, Grieger walks us through the sensitive case of ACCC v AMI.
Following one of the most prominent and memorable advertising campaigns of the 2000s, characterised by the line “Want Longer Lasting Sex?”, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Advanced Medical Institute (AMI) and related entities alleging a raft of contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law including unconscionable conduct. In this episode, we explore how this case dived into the easily forgotten area of unfair contract terms.
The Federal Court’s Justice North declared a range of provisions contained in AMI’s (or related entities’) customer agreements void as they violated the Australian Consumer Law’s prohibitions on unfair contract terms. This included terms imposing arbitrary administrative and cancellation-related fees as well provisions that effectively punished patients for terminating their arrangements with AMI (or related entities) even where the medication did not work. Broadly, the contracts were found to lack transparency and clarity, ultimately leading to a situation where the contracts’ terms were unfair.
This is the thirteenth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to learn more about this case? There is a long litigation history to this case, check out some of the details here:
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
It is important to recall that safety is essential and in this 12th episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, the two Joels work their way through the 2022 case of ACCC v Mercedes-Benz.
Following several incidents of serious injuries and deaths, in 2018 a mandatory recall commenced in connection with Takata manufactured airbags. Airbags had been installed in approximately 3 million vehicles in Australia (and more than 100 million globally). In certain instances, on deployment, the airbags would cause metal and plastic shrapnel to explode out of the airbag. The recall applied to two types of airbag, Alpha and Beta airbags. Both airbags were deemed to pose a risk of death or injury, but the Alpha airbags posed a significantly higher safety risk.
Following the commencement of the mandatory recall program, Mercedes-Benz began recalling vehicles in accordance with a communication and engagement plan approved by the ACCC. In 2021, the ACCC commenced a proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia alleging that customer service staff had departed from the communication and engagement plan by using language that minimised the risks associated with the airbags. Mercedes-Benz admitted contravening provisions of the Australian Consumer Law associated with the recall and the Federal Court imposed a $12.5m penalty in 2022.
This is the twelfth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to learn more about this case? There is a long litigation history to this case, check out some of the details here:
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Sometimes outsourcing is a good thing. In Episode 11 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, the Joels try to answer your questions by speaking to consumer law experts.
Massive thank you to our experts for their time and finding answers to the burning questions. Our experts were:
No part of this episode constitutes legal advice, if these questions and answers touch on any legal concerns you might have, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice to learn more about the options available to you.
This is the eleventh episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Disclosure Note: Joel Lisk is engaged on a casual basis with Cowell Clarke within their Corporate and Commercial team.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Luxury awaits as we cruise on through Episode 10 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. In this episode the Joels explore the case of Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd and how the consumer guarantees can apply to services like holidays.
In 2013, due to heavy and damaging rain in Europe many luxury river cruises were significantly impacted due to the rivers in which they travel breaking their banks or simply being too high to allow the cruise ships to pass under bridges. Scenic Tours Pty Ltd was one of the cruise providers impacted by the weather. The river conditions seriously impacted on the experiences of paying customers, with many of them having to move between ships moored at different places along the rivers by bus, and in a lot of circumstances the promised ‘cruising’ simply could not happen.
In 2016, several passengers commenced a class action against Scenic Tours for allegedly failing to meet the standards required by the Australian Consumer Law, specifically that the services were not fit for the purpose for which they were procured, and that Scenic Tours did not render the services with due care and skill. After lengthy Court proceedings across several courts, the matter was resolved in 2023 (although some administrative matters continue) with Scenic Tours being required to pay compensation as the services provided were not fit for the purpose for which they were procured, including damages for disappointment.
This is the tenth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to learn more about this case? There is a long litigation history to this case, check out some of the details here:
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
In this episode, join the Joels as they race into the precarious chicane that is the consumer guarantees and second-hand cars.
While it might be unexpected, second-hand goods (including cars) receive the benefits of the consumer guarantees when sold by a business. Prestige Auto Traders Australia Pty Ltd v Bonnefin [2017] NSWSC 149 explores exactly this situation. The Bonnefins purchased a second-hand BMW X5 from Prestige Auto Trades Australia (‘Prestige’) that ultimately suffered from a series of defects Prestige were unable to address.
The Bonnefins commenced a proceeding in the Local Court of New South Wales claiming that their second-hand BWM suffered from so many defects that they were able to reject it and get their money back from Prestige. The Bonnefins were successful in the first instance, but Prestige appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking to overturn this decision. Justice N Adams of the NSW Supreme Court found that the volume of defects and the fact that the Bonnefins had acted quicky in attempting to have the defects remedied, let to the Her Honour upholding the Local Court’s finding in favour of the Bonnefins.
This case reaffirms the position that even when a good is purchased second hand, defects can be dealt with through the Australian Consumer Law.
This is the ninth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to learn more about this case? You can find the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2017/149.html
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
In this episode, the Joels have a chat about caravans – or, caravans with lots of problems - when they hitch their cars up to the case that is ACCC v Jayco. (Lisk might struggle, Mazda 2’s aren’t great for towing)
In 2017, the ACCC commenced an action against Australian’s caravan manufacturer Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd (Jayco) alleging that they had engaged in unconscionable conduct by obstructing them from obtaining certain remedies under the Australian Consumer Law associated with allegedly defective goods (being the caravans), as well as misleading or deceptive conduct.
The ACCC was ultimately unsuccessful in most of its claims (only succeeding on one instance of alleged misleading or deceptive conduct). Despite this, the case provides a useful insight into how Courts assess whether a person is entitled to remedies under the ACL’s consumer guarantees and what constitutes a ‘major failure’. This is the part this episode explores, following along with two examples of consumers with caravans the Court ultimately determined did suffer from major failures.
This episode only explores the fact finding and evidence presented in associated with certain examples presented by the ACCC in their pursuit of Jayco. The finding of major failures and subsequent discussions do not amount to a finding that Jayco breached the Consumer Guarantees.
This is the eighth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
In this episode, the Joels wade into the realm of the consumer guarantees and gaming, examining the facts behind the landmark case of ACCC v Valve Corporation that confirmed the extension of consumer guarantee rights (and the broader Australian Consumer Law) to businesses overseas operating into Australia.
In 2014, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Valve Corporation – the United States based company that operates the ‘Steam’ gaming platform – alleging that they had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by misrepresenting to consumers that were not entitled to remedies provided by the Australian Consumer Law.
The Federal Court found that Valve was required to comply with the ACL (as it was carrying on business in Australia – separately to the ACL content, this case is very important in determining whether an overseas entity ‘carries on business’ in Australia) and that it had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by having content like “ALL CHARGES INCURRED ON STEAM, AND ALL PURCHASES MADE WITH THE STEAM WALLET, ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, REGARDLESS OF THE PAYMENT METHOD, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.” (yes, the all caps was necessary. It is something you tend to see in US contracts) and “As with most downloadable software products, we do not offer refunds for purchases made through Steam – please review Section 4 of the Steam Subscriber Agreement for more information.” In their terms and conditions and refund policies.
Valve unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court, which upheld the decision. A subsequent request to appeal to the High Court was also rejected.
Valve was ordered to pay a $3 million penalty in 2017. (For the sake of clarity, Lisk's current Steam Library has 187 games in it and Grieger still calls it 'Stream')
This is the seventh episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
--
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more informationKeeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Can the Australian Consumer Law handle ChatGPT and other generative AI services? Well, that’s a question the Joels pose to ACL expert, Professor Jeannie Paterson in the first of their ‘Time for an Expert’ interviews.
Professor Paterson is the Director of Centre for AI and Digital Ethics and a Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne. Jeannie’s expertise lies in the areas of consumer protection, consumer credit and data protection law, as well as the law of emerging digital technologies, AI and robotics. Her research focuses on regulatory design for fair, safe, and accountable consumer products, and technologies. Jeannie’s research has been cited by law reform inquiries and by Courts, including by the High Court of Australia. She has consulted to ASEAN, the Banking and Financial Services Royal Commissions and ASIC on legal and regulatory reform. Jeannie has further provided influential contributions to law reform inquiries to the Productivity Commission, the Australian Law Reform Commission, Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, Commonwealth Treasury, and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
This is the fifth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Episode Five of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law has the Joels dive into the realm of pain relief and packaging with the case of ACCC v GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd (we’re just going with “GSK”).
In 2017, the ACCC commenced proceedings against the entities responsible for the Voltaren Emulgel and Osteo Gel products for misleading or deceptive conduct. The two products had identical formulations but were marketed as two distinct products marketed at separate consumer groups. The parties involved admitted that for a certain period, they had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, but did not admit to contraventions for a period between March 2017 and May 2018.
The Court ultimately found that GSK did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct for the period between March 2017 and May 2018 – finding that when considering the packaging of the products, how they were marketed, their positing on the shelf, GSK did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct for the contested period.
Interested in what the packaging actually looked like? Head over to https://www.consumerlaw.media/post/episode-five-well-that-s-a-pain-accc-v-gsk
For more information on ACCC v GSK, including links to the judgments of the court, click the links below.
This is the fifth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
--
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Get in touch with Grieger and Lisk at www.consumerlaw.media/contact, where you can also find out more about our up-and-coming multi-level marketing program.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
In this Episode Four of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, the Joel’s crack the complexity dial up a couple of notches with the case of ACCC v Trivago.
In 2018, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Trivago using several provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, broadly alleging that aspects of Trivago’s website and marketing were liable to mislead consumers. In 2020, a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Trivago had made misleading or false representations across its marketing and website. Trivago didn’t take this finding lighting, appealing to the Full Court of the Federal Court in the same year. The Full Court (three judges) agreed with first judgment. Ultimately, the Federal Court ordered Trivago to pay a $44.7 million penalty.
In this episode you’ll get to hear a little more about how website design and marketing can ultimately lead consumers to be misled. This case emphasises the importance for businesses to thoroughly consider how they market to consumers and the impressions that can be created from marketing and product design.
For more information on ACCC v Trivago, including links to the judgments of the courts, check the links below. You can also check out the official KUWTCL Case Note and read what the ACCC had to say about the case.
This is the fourth episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. In our next episode, we talk about pain, or at least how you market pain relief.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
--
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Looking for the case note? Head over to our blog: www.consumerlaw.media/post/episode-4-are-these-the-results-you-were-looking-for-accc-v-trivago
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
Join Joel Grieger and Joel Lisk for episode 3 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law and a discussion about the intriguing case of ACCC v Lorna Jane.
In July 2020, Lorna Jane began advertising a product line under the name of “LJ Shield Activewear”. Being at the height of some of the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, this activewear was described as being able to eliminate viruses including COVID-19. While highly ambitious – especially at a time well before the first vaccine had been developed – the statements were ultimately false and amounted to false or misleading conduct, conduct that ultimately cost Lorna Jane $5 million.
Join the Joels as they discuss the case, how the law worked and why such claims are ultimately misleading.
For more information on ACCC v Lorna Jane, check the links below to read the case, check out the official KUWTCL Case note and read what the ACCC had to say about the case.
This is the third episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. In our next episode, we unpack the complex 2020 case of ACCC v Trivago.
--
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
In this second episode, join Joel Grieger and Joel Lisk for a discussion of the 2022 case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Uber.
This episode, the first of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law’s case-focused episodes explores how Uber ended up paying $3 million in penalties for overestimating taxi fares and $18 million for the short sentence “You may be charged a small fee since your driver is already on the way” (equal to $1.2 million per word).
Using this case, the Joels will give you a practical explanation of what provisions of the ACL on misleading or deceptive conduct can be used for and how important it is for businesses to comply.
For more information on ACCC v Uber, check the links below to read the case, check out the official KUWTCL Case note and read what the ACCC had to say about the case.
This is the second episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. In our next episode, we unpack the idea of anti-viral activewear with the case of ACCC v Lorna Jane.
--
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Looking for a short case note? Head to https://www.consumerlaw.media/post/episode-2-is-that-how-much-it-cost-to-cancel-accc-v-uber
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
In this first episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, join Joel Grieger and Joel Lisk for a discussion on what the Australian Consumer Law is, how it works, who it applies to and some of the protections it includes. So… want the tl:dl (too long; didn’t listen)?
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is a series of rules and principles that apply to nearly all transactions occurring in Australia, this includes when you buy your groceries, when you engage a tradesperson, and buying a car.
Some protections in the ACL are dependent on who you are and what you are doing, so for some sections you need to be a ‘consumer’ or a person who is buying goods and/or services for domestic purposes or with a purchase price less than $100,000 – which means that nearly every purchase in a person's life will be covered by parts of the ACL.
The ACL specifically includes content related to misleading or deceptive conduct, prohibitions on unfair contract terms, rules around marketing and pricing, gift cards, unsolicited supply, consumer guarantees and the safety of goods, amongst other things.
This is the first episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law, the next episode will explore the recent case of ACCC v Uber – a case involving misleading or deceptive conduct, the Uber app and cancellation policies. Join us in a fortnight for episode 2, ACCC v Uber.
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia. You can learn more about the Law Foundation of South Australia by visiting their website: www.lawfoundationsa.com.au
Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to www.consumerlaw.media/legal-advice for more information
Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?
Recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.
