The High Court also confirmed that deterrence should play a ‘primary’ role in setting the appropriate penalty to be imposed on a trader for a contravention of s 18. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd HCA 54, the High Court confirmed importance of s 18 in protecting consumer interests by holding that so-called ‘headline’ advertising may be misleading notwithstanding the existence of a fine print disclaimer qualifying the representations in the headline statement. It may also increase costs for consumers, incurred either by entering into contracts that are not in their best interests or by incurring search costs that are wasted when they discover that the product does not exist as represented. This may reduce competition in the market by leading consumers to favour products that don’t have the features that are promoted. Misleading conduct in advertisements by traders causes harm by distorting the purchasing choices of consumers. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (previously s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)) contains a broad ranging prohibition on conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. By Dr Jeannie Marie Paterson and Veronica Wong
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |