TPG Case Study: Misleading Advertising

This assignment delves into the legal case against TPG Internet Pty Ltd. for alleged misleading advertising practices. It examines court judgments, specific arguments presented by both sides, and the implications of the rulings under Australian consumer law. The analysis focuses on TPG's bundling approach and how it was perceived as misleading by regulators and consumers.

HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 1...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 3...................................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 4...................................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 5...................................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 6...................................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 7...................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
The Trade Practices Act (1974) defines various statutory provisions with relation to
defining the rules and regulation which are to be followed by an organisation while acting in
business environment legally and ethically (Pearson, 2017). In order to reduce the legal
complications in business developmental activities firm should take care of such legislation in
order to not to misled consumers. In this particular report the case law of ACCC vs TPG internet
Pty Ltd. is studied which defined the various provisions of TPA (1974).
QUESTION 1
The TPG Internet Pty Ltd. is engaged in delivering its communication services to
consumers. Firm is an internet provider and telecommunication services provider to the market
of Australia. The business entity introduced an scheme of providing internet and phone
connection with maintaining ADLS2+ services. Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission (ACCC) filed a case because of false representation of TPG services in their
advertisement campaign. The company is advertising less amount of charges for unlimited
internet plan and while they are are charging higher amount than advertised as installation fee,
telephonic charges and other hidden charges to customers. The 3 misleading animadverts of TPP
alleged by ACCC are as follows:
 The TPG advertised that firm is providing unlimited downloading with ADSL2+ services
only for 29.99 dollars.
 It is found that business organisation is charging many of hidden charges over this
scheme plan of internet.
 The Internet pack is bundled with telephonic connection in home which cost for 30.00
dollars per month (Corones, 2014).
 Following this customers have to pay 129 installation fee for telephone connection. In
order top this customer have to pay in total 149.99 dollars to TPG company instead of
only 29.99 dollars.
QUESTION 2
The statutory provisions are defined as legislation introduced by government in order to
develop ethical and legal actions in working of business corporation in country. These provision
controls over activities of companies engaged in any kind of fraud or deceptive actions in
1

practices. ACCC claimed that TPG advertising are promising internet pack to customer at lower
prices but they are charging higher amount from customer in practices which considered by
ACCC an misleading actions. Trade Practices Act of 1974 defines various legislations which
restricts an firm to work legally in business environment (Corones, 2014). The various statutory
provision contravened by TPG internet Pty Ltd. are defined below. Section 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974- TPG corporation is alleged to charges which is
stated in this particular section of act which states that no organisation should not be
involved in any kind of misleading and deceptive activities.
 Section 53 of Trade Practices Act 1974- The organisation advertising is contravened as
false representation of content according to this respective section 53 that no business
firm is allowed to represent false statement with respect to prices of products and services
or can not include exclusion of any condition like guarantee, warranty in their
advertisements.
QUESTION 3
The primary judge decision was against TPG firm as corporation is engaged in
misleading customers through false advertisements. The judgement of primary judge stated three
casualties towards the Trade Practices Act of 1974 by TPG internet Pty Ltd. which are described
below.
Bundling: This is judged by primary judge that company is misleading the message of
advertisements as firm is not detailed about various cost of bundling services. The company is
advertising only internet services prices and not conveyed any cost of telephonic connection as
bundling cost which considered as an misconduct and misleading statement by primary judge.
Set-up fee: The TPG company also not communicated any kind of installation cost to
consumers in their advertisement. As the company is new in market customers also do not have
knowledge about their policy and hidden costs which is an deceptive statement for primary court
and consumers of organisation (McKendrick and Liu, 2015).
Single price: As per the section 53 (1) C of Trade practices Act (1974) primary judge
concluded that the full cost of the internet services of ADSL2+ is 149.99 dollars for consumers
including all hidden cost which is not prominent by TPG company in their advertisement which
is and deceptive and illegal activity.
2

QUESTION 4
There was an significant differences in the judgements of primary judge and full court.
The full court provide decision in favour of TPG company and not considered advertisement
misleading by following differences from primary judge:
 Full court concluded that consumers are only considered some word of advertisement
instead of checking whole content of massage delivered by advertisement of TPG internet
Pty Ltd. Full court conveyed that this is misleading by consumer to select some of the
word and ignore rest of content displayed in advertising (Lewis, 2013).
 The full court also judged that the services comes with bundling. So, customers should
check all the bundling products along with the internet services of company. Bundling
can not be misleading for an company as these are considered as promotional strategies
of an corporations.
QUESTION 5
The judgement of high court was against the TPG company and was in favour of ACCC.
High court concluded that the decision made by full court was not fits with purpose of high court
due to following differences in decisions:
 High court concluded that full court decisions was in favour of TPG company and said
that customers should take care of their duties to know about while content of message.
Which was wrongly represented by full court and high court was against to this
statement.
 While High court was trying to neutralise the case of TPG corporation advertisement
with concept of bundling which was a mistaken with respect to the judgement of high
court.
 While High court also announced that case of Puxu was miss-represented and wrongly
used in decision made by full court in favour of TPG organisations (Australia: ACCC v
TPG Internet Pty Limited. 2013).
QUESTION 6
The court proceeding of full court using the decision made in Puxu and Parkdale Custom
build furniture is not having any relevance with the case of TPG advertising and ACCC claim. In
the above case the decision made by justice was that customer should take care of quality and
3

condition of furniture before making purchase, but in case of TPG corporation the product sold is
not an furniture and company is engaged in delivering services to consumer which does not
define any relevance with the Puxu case. High court concluded that case of Puxu is of misled
consumer while the case of TPG was misrepresenting message of content and also bundling and
set-up costs.
QUESTION 7
As a part of marketing team of TPG company I will suggest to make an dominant
advertisement content with conveying right subject matter to consumer and not to misconduct
any message to customers. As judgement given by High court I would recommend to select
appropriate content of message while conveying any information to customer as per the
provisions of Trade Practices Act of 1974 and not to mislead customers and work ethically and
legally in business environment (Steele and van Boom, 2011). The company should repentant
their information of advertising with clear message and communicating all the hidden
information appropriately. While describing about any internet pricing in advertisement firm
should communicate all bundling cost, installation fee and also convey one prices to consumers
to build a good healthy and trustworthy relationship with customers.
CONCLUSION
At the end of this particular report this can be concluded that the various judgement from
the high court and primary court was against to the advertisement campaign of TPG company.
While Full Court try to neutralise the message by bundling approach of firm which was further
neglected and rejected by misinterpretation of Puxu case by high court judgement.
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Corones, S. (2014). Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. TPG Interney Pty
Ltd., Forrest v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission: Misleading Conduct
Arising from Public Statements: Establishing the Knowledge Base of the Target
Audience. Melb. UL Rev. 38. 281.
Corones, S. G. (2014). Misleading conduct arising from public statements: establishing the
knowledge base of the target audience. Melbourne University Law Review. 38(1). 281-
315.
Lewis, G. (2013). Australia's regulatory panopticon. AQ-Australian Quarterly. 84(4). 26.
McKendrick, E & Liu, Q. (2015). Contract Law: Australian Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pearson, G. (2017). Further challenges for Australian consumer law. In Consumer Law and
Socioeconomic Development (pp. 287-305). Springer, Cham.
Steele, J & van Boom, W. (Eds.). (2011). Mass justice: challenges of representation and
distribution. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Online
Australia: ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Limited. 2013.
<http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/281682/advertising+marketing+branding/
ACCC+v+TPG+Internet+Pty+Limited+High+Court+rules+on+claims+of+misleading+
headline+advertising>
5