Detailed Analysis of ACCC v Snowdale Holdings Legal Case Report

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd (2016) case. The case revolves around Snowdale, a major egg producer, being accused of misleading advertising by labeling its eggs as "free range" when the hens' living conditions did not meet the standards. The report examines the legal issues, including the violation of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Australian Consumer Law. It details the ACCC's role in protecting consumer rights and the court's findings, which included penalties and orders against Snowdale. The analysis covers the definition of "free range," the evidence presented, and the legal implications of misleading consumers. The report also discusses the impact of the case on the egg industry and the importance of accurate labeling and consumer protection. The judgment by Siopsis J and the introduction of the Australian Consumer Law (Free Range Egg Labelling) Information Standard 2017 are also highlighted. Overall, the report offers a detailed examination of the legal proceedings and outcomes of this significant consumer law case.

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
ISSUE..............................................................................................................................................1
RULE...............................................................................................................................................1
APPLICATION...............................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The main role of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is to enforce
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in order to maintain fair trading, promoting competition
and so on. Trade Practices Act 1974 consist several types of rules, policies and procedure which
are imposed on companies. Through firms are bound to provide accurate information in their
advertisements in order to attract large number of customers. No firm can mentioned mislead
information or misrepresentation because such act is not fit for the purpose of law and for which
courts imposed penalties on them 1. Before imposed penalties legal authorities needs to define
wrongful act of any parties and proof their guilt as well. In present report case Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission v Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd (2016) has been
discussed. The case is related with mislead information framed by Snowdale. It is the largest
supermarket which supplies eggs in entire country. Such company act as defendant in that case.
So that, against which federal courts provide final judgement in relation with penalties which
have to paid by it within stipulated time period. No further law can protect such company. ACCC
act as plaintiff which can lodge complaint against Snowdale in order to protect interest of
customers. Also it denied with any type of wrongdoing.
ISSUE
Snowdale is one of the most popular Western Australia's largest egg producer firm. It
provided large number of egg in international market with labelled as cage, free range as well as
barn laid to different number of retailers. Members of such firm trying to provide better services
to their targeted customers in order to attract them and keep them for long time. In order to
promote their services 2. Firm use advertisement and mentioned all related information in it. But
Snowdale mentioned mislead information or data. This act has been considered as wrongful act
as per the rules of law. Cited also promoted its eggs in the form of “free range” within the eggs
by Ellah website from the date of May 2013. ACCC act as plaintiff in such case so that, for
1 Biegelman, Martin T., and Daniel R. Biegelman. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
compliance guidebook: Protecting your organization from bribery and corruption. Vol.
8. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
2 Cooper, William H. "Free trade agreements: Impact on US trade and implications for US
trade policy." Current Politics and Economics of the United States, Canada and
Mexico 16.3 (2014): 425.
1

wrongful act it lodges complaint against another party in order to receive amount of
compensation. Labelled eggs with free range is become issue in this case. ACCC took legal
against WA firm Snowdale Holding after obtaining the function of evidence of hens at the
approx. two of its farms which is not able to move freely or go inside or outside the company
through which company branding its egg are of free range.
RULE
Through authority can improve welfare of consumer, try to stop activities which are
harmful for welfare of people and enhance functions which are beneficial for them. ACCC seeks
to educate both people as well as companies as they can able to understand rights, duties and
responsibilities which are mentioned under act. This is the legal body which is able to protect
interest and rights of customers and able to maintain their performance in effective manner. The
main of ACCC is to take care of entire society and protect them from any type of hazard.
The investigatory power of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has
been defined under Australian consumer law. This commission having power to conduct
investigation against another party against who they file or lodge complaints in order to solve
dispute. Members of such commission are responsible to follow rules which are imposed on
them.
The enforcement power of ACCC has been mentioned under Australian Consumer
Law. In this law legal authority define rights and responsibilities of consumers in order to protect
them from any type of harm or hazardous act.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) defined some rules in Trade
Practices Act 1974. According to rules companies are not able to mentioned any mislead
information in their advertisement. As per this law it should be clear, simple and understandable.
Also it must be preparing in attractive form which is able to capture better profit for long term. If
any entity failed to do so than legal authorities having power to imposed penalties on them.
Certain rules of Trade Practices Act 1974 imposed restrictions on companies that they are not
able to mentioned false information also not able to misguide their customers as well. In case
firms are failed to do the same then large number of liabilities are imposed on them. After
members have to pay amount of penalties equal to mentioned under law.
In case producer deliver free range of services to people than they have to prove them as
well. Authorities which deliver their goods and services in international market than they are
2

bound to comply with rules which are mentioned under law. They have to fulfil terms and
conditions as imposed on them 3. As per rules producers are bound to deliver best quality of
products and services to consumers in keep them for long time and increase in numbers as well.
Through mislead or misrepresentation information consumers got confused and remove their
trust from companies. No firm can charge extra amount from their targeted customers in order to
earn better return. But entire members of the firm are bound to use their collective efforts for
offer better services to people for the purpose of keep then for long time. Otherwise, such act of
entities are able to create exploitation of right of people. Members needs to understand the
meaning or limit of production and delivery of goods and services. However, crown immunity
needs to be applies on them for comply with them for the purpose of protect their interest and
rights. Whether, directors or higher authorities of company are responsible to manage entire
performance of company and try to increase number of customers through providing best quality
of services to them. Also try to control wrongful act conducted by employees. Through they not
able to raise profit margin and not able to maintain reputation in international market. For the
same purpose Government of Australia frame various types of rules and policies which are
imposed on them and maintain their performance as well.
APPLICATION
Power of ACCC has been defined Section 219 of Australian Consumer Law has been
allow ACCC to issue substances notice which is considered as representation which may appear
to contravene the CCA. In this legal procedure compliance period is 21 days. Under section 223
of ACL, ACCC is responsible to issue public warning notice for the purpose of protect interest
of entire society.
In present case Snowdale not follow rules and policies which are mentioned under law.
Cited provide egg in Australian market in order to satisfy their customer and provide best quality
of goods and services to them. Snowdale produced eggs as a barn system but it sold the eggs as
free range with higher price 4. Also offer the same to large number of retailer in Australian
3 Koehler, Mike. "The story of the foreign corrupt practices act." (2012).
4 Reilly, Peter. "Negotiating Bribery: Toward Increased Transparency, Consistency, and
Fairness in Pretrial Bargaining Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." Hastings Bus.
LJ 10 (2013): 347.
3

market. But free rang is the mislead information as per the rules of law which is wrongful act and
not enforceable by law. Furthermore, due to this reason Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission (ACCC) file case against Snowdale in order to receive amount of compensation
which are imposed on them. Members of ACCC found that services provided by company are
not able to meet their requirement of customers and not fulfil their basic demand as well. Firm
promoted its eggs by Ellah website from the date of May 2013. Cited organization not follow the
rules of Trade Practices Act 1974 but members not comply with policies. Because this law
restricts companies to follow rules and it is responsible to mention correct information or data in
their advertisement which services actually provided by companies. But customers who used egg
of such firm are not not satisfy with services. It’s important for company to satisfy their
consumers and fulfil their needs as well. So that, for the same purpose investigation conduct by
ACCC in order to analyse actual fault of firm. After investigation it has been concluded that
entity sold 71 per cent eggs from its production as free range from year 2012 to year 2013 as
well as it charges extra premium from its targeted customers.
In the given case Snowdale act as defendant and ACCC act as plaintiff. Furthermore,
defendant provide false information to people through advertisement by free range eggs. So that,
due to this reason plaintiff lodge complaint against other party. Both parties are bound to follow
their roles and responsibilities which are imposed on them and mentioned under legal document.
ACCC files complaint against company for its wrongful act. It has been defined that
company provide huge number of eggs in international market in order to earn better profit and
raise them earn capacity as well. From May 2013 Snowdale offer free range eggs which is
considered as mislead information as per rule of law. Company labelling its eggs in between
April 2011 to December 2013 which was considered as deceptive as well as amount with false
representation 5. The federal court has been found that Snowdale's sheds are not able to go
outside as in the form of farming conditions which is significantly inhibited them. Such several
number of terms and conditions has been included pop holes, different number of birds per metre
are also included as pop holes, the flock size which is involve inside the shed as well as size of
the shed.
5 Round, David K., ed. The Australian Trade Practices Act 1974: Proscriptions and
prescriptions for a more competitive economy. Vol. 19. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2013.
4

In April 2017 legal authorities introduce an other legal body name called Australian
Consumer Law (Free Range Egg Labelling) Information Standard 2017 in order to define rules
related to labelling of free range on eggs. Such legal body is considered as national information
standard which is able to resolve matter of parties which are related to labelling on eggs. It has
been consisting under Australian consumer law. It defines various types of rules and policies and
bound Snowdale company to follow them and provide services accordingly. It defines rules that
labelled as free range needs to be laid by hens along with meaningful as well as required to
access on regular basis to outdoors. Also it requires maximum outdoors and stocking density of
approximately 10,000 hens at a time.
As per further rules, firm not follow such rules and conduct functions accordingly. The
commissioner of ACCC name called Mick Keogh defined that customers have to paying for
premium goods and services. So that, their expectation will not be duped by producers through
making false claims. The highest penalty needs to be imposed on company because consumers
pay premium on free range eggs but not provided the same by firm 6. It is must that people are
buying eggs which is laid by chickens in the terms and conditions of free range. Framers who
invested huge amount in farming conditions through which they can able to make valid claims
are considered as credence like free range. This process is able to protect people from false
credence claim. In the present case Siopsis J provide judgement in order to prevent cited firm
from opted or using the words called as free range. The reason is that, eggs are produced by hens
so that it is necessary to go outside as per the ordinary basis which is helpful for them and
beneficial as well. Siopsis J imposed order that firm have to implement or follow compliance
program of consumer law. Also it is bound to contribute towards the cost of ACCC. Certain
order to needs to be opted by companies in order to maintain their performance and earn profit in
better manner. But before imposed penalties or any kind of punishment authorities needs to
gather information or data about guilt of plaintiff and also responsible to proof them in court as
well.
The federal courts have been found that Snowdale done wrongful act. Due to such reason
company is liable to bear penalty equal to mentioned under law for providing mislead
6 Subramaniam, Thamarai, Hamid A. Jalab, and Alaa Y. Taqa. "Overview of textual anti-
spam filtering techniques." International Journal of Physical Sciences 5.12 (2010): 1869-
1882.
5

information or data to consumer 7. After hearing appeal of both party’s courts take final decision
and imposed higher amount of penalty on company that is 7,50,000 dollars. Thus, members of
firm are bound to pay such amount within stipulated time period and in order to comply with
rules of law. On 25th July 2017 the final judgement has been provided by federal court in order to
protect interest of people. Humane Society International define that fine which is imposed on
company has been considered as largest in Australian history for such type of breach. The federal
court take decision in favour of ACCC and found that firm is responsible for misleading
consumers. In such case, better justice has been served by courts which is beneficial for people.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is able to control entire functions of company. It
defines various roles and responsibilities related by information used in advertisement which is
opted by companies in order to maintain its performance in international market. Such rules need
to opted by members of the organization in order to comply with laws.
CONCLUSION
From the above report, it is concluded that companies have to provide accurate
information or data in their advertisement which they used in order to promote their goods and
services in effective manner. Through they are attract people but in case firm mentioned mislead
information than legal authorities have right to imposed penalties on them. In case Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission v Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd (2016), it has been
studied that Snowdale holding Pty Ltd. is the largest egg producer which provide their services in
international market. It labelled on egg free range. So that, Federal courts has been found that
free range is the mislead information, for the same reason on 15th April 2016 court imposed
3,00,000 dollars’ penalties which needs to paid by members of Snowdale. Judges has been
concluded that information of free range egg is considered as mislead and for which ACCC files
claims against firm. At last the judgement of federal court has been passed and define Snowdale
is guilty or it imposed penalty on company for 7,50,000 dollars. Also cited firm is responsible to
pay such amount within stipulated time period. In order to comply with laws.
7 Sandeen, Sharon K. "The Evolution of Trade Secret Law and Why Courts Commit Error
When They Do Not Follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act." Hamline L. Rev. 33 (2010):
493.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Biegelman, Martin T., and Daniel R. Biegelman. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance
guidebook: Protecting your organization from bribery and corruption. Vol. 8. John
Wiley & Sons, 2010.
Cooper, William H. "Free trade agreements: Impact on US trade and implications for US trade
policy." Current Politics and Economics of the United States, Canada and Mexico 16.3
(2014): 425.
Koehler, Mike. "The story of the foreign corrupt practices act." (2012).
Reilly, Peter. "Negotiating Bribery: Toward Increased Transparency, Consistency, and Fairness
in Pretrial Bargaining Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." Hastings Bus. LJ 10
(2013): 347.
Round, David K., ed. The Australian Trade Practices Act 1974: Proscriptions and prescriptions
for a more competitive economy. Vol. 19. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Sandeen, Sharon K. "The Evolution of Trade Secret Law and Why Courts Commit Error When
They Do Not Follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act." Hamline L. Rev. 33 (2010): 493.
Subramaniam, Thamarai, Hamid A. Jalab, and Alaa Y. Taqa. "Overview of textual anti-spam
filtering techniques." International Journal of Physical Sciences 5.12 (2010): 1869-1882.
Online
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Egg Corporation Limited
[2016] FCA 69. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/
2016/2016fca0069>. [Accessed on 19th September 2017].
7