(PDF) Privacy in (mobile) Telecommunications Services
Added on - 29 Nov 2019
Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 6 pages
Running Head: Law1Law
Law2Answer 1-TPG Internet Pty was a company which provides services related to internet andtelephone connectionsto the consumers and these connections were given by the company underthe name ADSL2+. Careless and misleading conduct of the TPG provoked ACCC to take legalaction against TPG. Following three issues were addressed by the ACCC in this case:Company fails to mention anything about the set-up fee and other cost in theadvertisement published in newspapers and online related to the services provided by thecompany.Company make false representation related to the cost of services in the advertisement, ascompany stated that cost of internet service was $29.99 only.Company charge hidden cost from the consumer and failed to disclose fixed cost in theadvertisement. Hidden cost includes set-up fee and telephone charges, which meansconsumer had to pay $149.95 instead of $29.99.Therefore, company fails to meet its promises made in the advertisement and it also engaged inmisleading or deceptive conduct because it recovers hidden cost for the internet connectionsfrom the consumers (Federal Court of Australia, 2012).Answer 2-The main issue determined by the Court was whether conduct of the TPG can beconsidered as misleading or deceptive related to the advertisement published by the TPG. Fordetermining this issue Court referred two statutory provisions and these sections were Section 52and 53 of the Trade Practices Act. However, it must be noted that these sections were equivalentto the section 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010- schedule 2. Contraventionsof both the sections were stated below:TPG was engaged in conduct which was misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead ordeceptive under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Trade Practices Act, 1974).
Law3TPG was liable to make false and misleading representations related to the price of theinternet service, and this contravenes section 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. TPGwas also liable to contravene Clause g of this section by made false or misleadingrepresentation related to the existence or effect of the condition Trade Practices Act,1974).Above stated sections were contravened by the company by publishing advertisement related tothe internet service on television, radio, its website, third party internet sites and in newspapers,and this advertisement contained the statement which reflect that company provide unlimitedinternet (ADSL2+) for $29.99 per month. This advertisement reflect that consumers were able toget unlimited internet broadband service in $ 29.99 per month, but in actual company alsocharged some hidden cost and this hidden cost includes:Per month Payment to TPG of $59.99.Purchase or accompanied telephone line of home with broadband internet service onrental at an additional cost of $30 per month.Payment made to TPG regarding up front charges of either $79.95 or $129.95, on thebasis of terms of the contract (Corones, 2014).Answer 3-primary Judge gave his opinion on three perspectives which includes Bundling, setup fee, and single price:Bundling- as per the primary Judge, company was under obligation to clearly state anysuch effect. It was also the duty of the company to state the exact figure of the servicesoffered without misleading the consumer and making them pay the cost after taking theservices and also clarify the inclusions of the hidden cost. TPG mislead the consumers bystating fake amount in the advertisements related to the internet services provided.