TPG Internet Pty Ltd Advertising Case Analysis

Answer 1. TPG Internet Pty Ltd had started an advertising campaign during 2010 and 2011. An
offer concerning unlimited ADSL+ service was widely publicized in these advertisements. It was
mentioned in these advertisements that the customers can avail these services at a price of $39.99
per month. However, the less prominent message present in these advertisements was that the
services need to be bundled with home telephone service of the company. In order to avail the
service, the consumers were required to shell out $30 per month more. Similarly, a setup fee of
$129.95 was also being charged by the company from the consumers. Another additional charge
that has to be paid by the consumers was in the form of $20 as telephone charges. The Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission alleged that these advertisements were misleading and
deceptive.
Answer 2. It was alleged by the ACCC that the advertisements issued by the company regarding
its ADSL+ services were in fact, misleading and deceptive. The Commission further claimed that
these advertisements resulted in the breach of section 52 of the TPA as well as s18, ACL. These
allegations were made by the commission in view of the fact that a difference existed amid the
prominent offer of the advertisements and less prominent terms qualifying the offer. The
commission also alleged that certain advertisements issued by the company can be considered as
being in breach of s53(1)(c). The reason given by the commission in this regard was the
advertisements have not prominently mentioned the price that has to be paid by the consumers as
a single figure.

Answer 3. For the purpose of deciding this issue, the trial judge also followed the claim made by
the commission that the advertisements of the company were in fact misleading and deceptive.
As a result, these advertisements amounted to the breach of s18 and 29, ACL. The reason was
that the leading business did not prominently mentioned from the price of the package. This was
considered as a breach of section 40, ACL. Therefore the trial judge favored the claim of the
commission that TPG advertisements were misleading.
Bundling: concerning the issue of bundling, it was found by the court that first-time users were
also part of target audience. Similarly, there are a number of Internet options accessible in the
marketplace, the normal consumers cannot make a preliminary assumption easily that the offer
of the company was a distinct offer or related with a bundled service (Fox v Percy, 2003). Hence,
the court stated that it was expected that the consumers may rely on the matter that has been
prominently mentioned in the advertisements in order to seek information regarding the service
that was being offered by TPG.
Set up Fee: although the court accepted the fact that generally broadband contracts are less than
24 months and generally a setup fee is also charged. The court also stated that under the
circumstances it can be expected that the audience (Branir Pty Ltd v Owston, 2001]). That was
the target of these advertisements would be aware of this fact but the court also stated that an
impression was caused by the dominant message of these advertisements that any other fee was
not going to be charged by the company (Elders Trustee v E. G. Reeves, 1987). Consequently,
the court stated that it needs to be clearly mentioned by the company in the advertisements that