Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

BUSINESS LAW1
Issue
The issue involves in the instant case is as to whether PSP, Facebook, Miranda, or VHS
violate the provision of Parts 2-1, 2-2, 3-1 of the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
The Australian Consumer law1 is the national legislation that targeted to safeguard
deceptive or misleading practices, misleading or false claims, unfair contract standards, and also
guarantees to the consumer and address the marketing techniques2. The deceptive or misleading
conduct, as described in Section 2, 4, 18 of The Australian Consumer Law enumerates that it is
unlawful for the transaction to involve in an activity that either deceives or misleads or is
probable to deceive or mislead the customers or any other transactions3. The legislation that is
applicable even though there exists no intention to deceive or mislead the consumers, or there is
no damage or loss as impacting from the conduct4. It is significant to observe the conduct of
1 The Australian Consumer Law (Cth)
2 Corones, Stephen, and Philip H. Clarke. Australian Consumer Law Commentary and Materials. (Thomson Reuters
(Professional), 2015).
3 Thampapillai, Dilan. "THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW." (2015) Australian Commercial Law 374.
4 Tan, Vivi. "Unfair Contract Terms." (2015) Australian Commercial Law : 380.

BUSINESS LAW2
business that influences the impression of the audience of service or good. At the time of
determining that the act is deceptive or misleading or probable to deceive or mislead, the most
relevant issue is to question as to whether the whole impression is made by conduct that is
inaccurate or false5.
In the case of Google Inc. v. ACC [2013] HCA 1, the issue involved is whether Google
engaged in deceptive or misleading practices by presenting in the search engine the web address
of the advertiser as sponsor link that also involves competitor name6. It was claimed by Google
that the conduct was merely an outlet for an advertiser. Justice Hayne advocated the appeal but
for a diverse reason. It was held by the honor that advertising and publishing paid and made by
the third party might infringe Section 52, and relevant examination was not whether Google had
adopted or endorsed the advertisers’ representations. Nonetheless, in case the Google users’
search engine would not comprehend that Google to make misleading representations.
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. TPG Internet Pty
Ltd [2013]HCA 54, 7 the High Court accepts the appeal as against the federal court’s decision
that announces that TPG involved in the deceptive or misleading conduct or making a misleading
or false representation in violation of Section s53 and 52 of Trade Practices Act, 1974(Cth) in
5 Sise, Peter. "The Unfair Contract Term Provisions: What's Transparency Got to Do with It." (2017) QUT L.
Rev. 17: 160.
6 Google Inc. v. ACC [2013] HCA 1
7 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013]HCA 54

BUSINESS LAW3
connection to the broadband internet transaction advertised through television in 2010 in addition
to that ordered TPG to make payment of $50,000 in penalty.
The Australian Consumer Law creates it unlawful for the transaction to motivate the customer to
buy services or goods by assuring advantages that will assist commerce in supplying services or
goods to other consumers8. The Unfair contract terms are entailed in Section 32, 35, 36 of The
Australian Consumer Law9. Furthermore, it is unlawful to take part or encourage someone to
participate in the pyramid scheme. The pyramid scheme creates money by employing an
individual somewhat than by vending actual services or goods, even though the scheme involves
the product selling. From the perspective of the unfair contractual terms, the legislation
safeguards the customers from making unfair conditions in the situation where there exists less
scope to negotiate with transactions such as contract standards.
In the case of Australian Communication Network v. ACCC [2005] FCAFC 221,10 it
had been observed by Late Justice Selway that ACH take part in the promotion and also
attempted or induced to instigate the individuals to participate in the scheme of pyramid selling
in violation of Section 65AAC of the act and the CAN director abetted and aided and knowingly
8 Ali, Syuhaeda Aeni Mat, Rusni Hassan, and Ahmad Azam Othman. "Inadequacy of Consumer Protection from
Unfair Contract Terms in Musharakah Mutanaqisah Home Financing In Malaysia." (2017): Journal of Islamic
Finance 176.5872 1-11.
9 Pearson, Gail. "Further challenges for Australian consumer law." 2017 Consumer Law and Socioeconomic
Development. Springer, Cham. 287-305.
10 Australian Communication Network v. ACCC [2005] FCAFC 221