Misleading Advertising in Australian Consumer Law

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took action against TPG Internet Pty Ltd for allegedly misleading advertisements. The ads claimed cheaper prices for ADSL2+ services, but the terms of offer were different from the main headlines. The ACCC alleged that this was in contravention of s 53C(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, as it did not specify a single price explicitly for its services. The case went to the High Court of Australia, which concluded that except for the first television advertisement, the others were not misleading.

Running Head: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd
1
Answer: 1
The ACCC took an action against TPG in the Federal Court of Australia alleging
that the ads by TPG were confusing and false because the main headlines proposing
less price of ADSL2+ service were different from the terms of offer. Further the
advertisement was in contravention of s 53C(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
as it did not specified a single price explicitly for its services (High Court of
Australia 2013).
Answer: 4
The full high court concluded differently from the primary judge that except the first
television all the advertisements were not misleading. Further the full court was of the
view that in order to decide whether the advertisement was of misleading nature or not
the dominant message was important.
Answer: 6
First, TPG's objective viewers did not comprise of possible buyers who aimed at
buying a particular service dedicated on the motive of their buying. And also its
advertisement created an interruption in the mind of the purchaser. Secondly, the

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd
2
Court failed to realize that the misleading nature of the advertisements had to be
decided by examining whether the advertisements were appropriate to carry the
possible buyer into negotiation with the company (TPG).
Answer: 7
I would suggest that the advertising campaign should explicitly provide the details of the
internet services and also should clearly give an account of the extra charges that would
be leviable as basic rent of the home telephone line and the minimum fee for the setup of
the same (High Court of Australia 2013).

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd
3
References
High Court of Australia 2013, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG
Internet PTY LTD. Available from: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-
summaries/2013/hca54-2013-12-12.pdf
High Court of Australia 2013, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG
Internet PTY LTD. Available from:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/54.html?
stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Australian%20Competition%20and%20Consumer
%20Commission%20and%20TPG%20Internet%20Pty%20)