Misleading and Deceptive Advertising by TPG Internet Pty Ltd

Q 1.
Answer: In this case, a multimedia advertising campaign was initiated by TPG Internet Pty Ltd.
That took place between 2010 and 2011 (ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd., 2013). The main
feature of these advertisements was an offer related with unlimited ADSL+ service, which was
being offered to the consumers that the price of $29.99 per month. But it was also mentioned in
these advertisements much less prominently that the consumers were required to bundle the
service along with home telephone service being offered by the company (Cusk, 2005). For this
service, the company had to be paid additional $30 per month for minimum six months. At the
same time, the company was also charging a setup fee of $129.95 from the consumers. Similarly,
it was also required that the consumers should pay a deposit of $20 for telephone charges. Under
these circumstances, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) claimed
that these advertisements of the company should be considered as misleading and deceptive.
Q 2
Answer: the ACCC claimed that the advertisements of TPG Internet Pty Ltd. need to be
considered as misleading and deceptive. Regarding the statutory provisions that were breached
by these advertisements, it was claimed by the commission that section 52 of the TPA and also
s18 of the Australian consumer law has been breached by these advertisements. The reason was
the disparity that existed among the offer that was prominently made in the advertisements and
the less prominent terms qualifying the offer. It was also claimed by the commission that some
of the advertisements of the company resulted in breaching the provisions of section 53C(1)(c).
The reason was that these advertisements fail to prominently mentioned the price of the package
as a single figure.

Q 3.
Answer: while deciding the case, the trial judge agreed with the claim of the Commission that
the advertisements issued by the company need to be treated as misleading and deceptive and
these advertisements have breached section 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. These
advertisements fail to prominently display the complete price of the package as a single figure.
This resulted in the breach of provisions mentioned in section 48, ACL.
In this way, the trial judge was in favor of the claim made by the commission that the
advertisements of TPG Internet were in fact misleading and deceptive. These advertisements are
considered to be in breach of section 18 and 29 of the Australian consumer law.
Bundling: it was a finding of the court that the first-time users were also a part of the target
audience of these advertisements. In the same way, due to the fact that a large number of Internet
options are available these days in the market, it is not possible for the ordinary consumers to
make a starting assumption concerning the fact that the offer made by TPG Internet was a
separate offer or a bundled service (Heydon, 1989). Therefore, under the circumstances it can be
expected that the consumers are going to rely on the matter prominently issued in the
advertisements for the purpose of seeking the information concerned with the service offered by
the company.
The Setup Fee: Even if it was accepted by the court that in case of Rod Ben contracts that are for
a period of less than 24 months, a setup fee is generally charged. Similarly, it can be expected
that the target audience of the advertisements would be aware in this regard; however the court

further mentioned that the dominant message that came out from these advertisements caused an
impression among the consumers that the company was not going to charge any further charges
(Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd., 2009). As a result, it was necessary that the
advertisements issued by the company should have clearly qualified the message by indicating
that the consumers are required to pay a further fee for availing the service offered by the
company.
Single price: in case of this issue, it was mentioned by the court that the advertisements issued by
the company failed to prominently mentioned a single price of $509.89, which was necessary in
view of the provisions of section 53C(1)(c), Trade Practices Act in the advertisements that were
issued by the company in the beginning in different media like, television, newspapers and the
Internet.
Q 4.
Answer: a considerable difference existed between the approach that has been taken by the
primary judge and the approach adopted by the Full Court. The first difference was related with
the significance of the "dominant message" that was a part of these advertisements. The other
difference was related with the approach adopted by these two courts regarding the attribution of
knowledge to the members of target audience.
Q 5
Answer: The High Court had reached at its conclusion, when it stated that the approach that has
been adopted by the Full Court cannot be described as correct due to certain reasons. First of all
the Full Court had made an error in doing away with the conclusions of the primary judge