ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd: A Case Study

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
[APPELLANT] v TPG INTERNET PTY LTD [RESPONDENT] (decided
in December 2013)
1

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................3
THE MAIN REASON BEHIND THE FEUD BETWEEN ACCC AND TPG.........................3
THE SEQUENCE OF COURT HEARINGS............................................................................3
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................6
2

INTRODUCTION
The report discusses the hearings, proceedings, and judgments that had occurred
between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and TPG Internet
Pty Ltd. The case was between the two pioneer companies related to controversy an
advertisement campaign (Yuile and Star, 2017). The report includes the different aspects and
perspectives that were related to the hearing of causes and decisions that were given by the
judges related to the case.
THE MAIN REASON BEHIND THE FEUD BETWEEN ACCC AND
TPG
TPG was found to be promoting a multi-media campaign that was related to the offers
which were provided to the consumers for the provision of ADSL2+ service. The price which
was offered to the customers were attractive in nature and proposed that the consumers can
avail internet services through telephone lines. This could be done by providing broadband
internet connection to the uses with no limit to data downloading facilities. The
advertisements that were promoted by TPG offered that ADSL2+ service was to be provided
at $29.99 per month which was reasonably low. The advertisement proposed that the
customer was required to pay a total sum of $129.95 in addition to a deposit of $20.00 which
would be charged for the provision of ADSL2+ services along with telephone charges
(Vijayasingam, 2017). The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleged that
the offerings that were given by TPG regarding the provision of ADSL2+ services at the
attractive and low price were not in accordance with the 53C(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act
1974 (Cth) (“the TPA”). The Act summoned that the company must be clear and transparent
about the prices that were charged for the provision of the services and products. But in the
case of TPG, it was not clear as it did not charge a single figure single price for the package
of services which it was provided to the large section of consumers.
THE SEQUENCE OF COURT HEARINGS
A case had come into the notice of Courts in Australia on 12 December 2013. In this
case, there were two parties that were the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) and TPG Internet Pty Ltd. appealing against each other. Truman Hoyle was
3