TPG Internet Misleading Advertising Analysis

This assignment delves into the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 case study. It examines the findings of the primary judge, Murphy J, regarding TPG's misleading advertising practices concerning bundling, set-up fees, and single pricing. The analysis highlights how TPG's advertisements were deemed unclear and potentially deceptive towards first-time internet users.

ACCC v TPG Case Study Analysis 1
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION V TPG INTERNET
PTY LTD [2013] HCA 54
by [Author(s) name(s)]:
BUS 101: Introduction to Business Law
(Tutor)
(University)
(City and State)
(Date)

ACCC v TPG Case Study Analysis 2
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013]
HCA 54
3. The Findings of the Primary Judge
Murphy J, the primary judge, heard the application by ACCC and made the following
conclusions with regard to bundling, the set-up fee and the single price.
 On bundling, the primary judge identified first time users as the majority composition
of the target audience. As first time users, this class of potential consumers, as the
court established, would be most reliant on the information available in the
advertisements challenged by the ACCC. The primary judge was of the opinion that
the bundling condition in TPG’s advertisements was unclear and misleading as the
average consumer would contract the company for the ADSL2+ bundle unaware that
they would incur additional fees for the home phone line (Edghill & Edwards, 2013).
(paras 22-25)
 Additionally, with regard to the set-up fee, the primary judge acknowledged that set-
up charges were an expected fee in this industry and a reasonable consumer should
expect them. However, the presentation of the $29.00 charge as the dominant message
was found misleading as the target audience could be led to believe that there were no
additional charges. However, the court gave recognised that the revised
advertisements in all but the radio aired advertisements countered this deceit.(paras
26-27)
 Further, with regard to the single fee, the primary court was of the opinion that TPG
was in contravention of section 53C of the Trade Practices Act 1974 for failure to
prominently display the fee as required (Battersby & Webb, 2013). The Judge
however recognised that the Commission had not made any claims with regard to this
provision concerning the new advertisements. (para 28)

ACCC v TPG Case Study Analysis 3
References
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013)
HCA 54.
Battersby, M. & Webb, K., 2013. Advertising and the ACL: Fine print couldn't save TPG
Internet in the Hight Court. [Online]
Available at: https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2013/december/advertising-and-the-
acl-fine-print-couldn-t-save-tpg-internet-in-the-high-court
[Accessed 17 September 2017].
Edghill, K. & Edwards, M., 2013. ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Limited: High Court rules on
claims of misleading headline advertising. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/281682/advertising+marketing+branding/
ACCC+v+TPG+Internet+Pty+Limited+High+Court+rules+on+claims+of+misleading+headli
ne+advertising
[Accessed 12 September 2017].