iiNet pay ACCC infringement notice for misleading advertising
home
view all news
news
ask the experts
blogs
hot topics
industry
resources
telecommunications
iiNet coughs up $102,000 as ACCC slaps
telco's naked rear end
Friday, 21 June 2013 11:14
YOLANDA REDRUP
Australian telecommunications company iiNet has paid an infringement notice of $102,000
from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for alleged misleading
advertising.
The advertisements in relation to its Naked DSL Service appeared on the rear of a bus in
Sydney and allegedly misled consumers over the monthly price of its service.
This is the first time an infringement notice has been paid by a publicly-listed company over
an alleged breach of Australian Consumer Law.
The bus ad appeared between February and March 2013 and displayed the monthly price of
iiNet's internet service as $59.95. This price did not include the costly installation fee and
even though the total price was displayed, the ACCC said it was not given enough
prominence.
free daily newsletter
your email address...
I wish to receive special offers via email from
related companies
Australian Consumer Law states an advertisement which promotes the monthly price of a
service must also prominently display the quantifiable total minimum price for the service.
In this case, the total price was $59.95 per month for 24 months plus a $79.95 connection
fee, making the total cost $1,518.75.
Paying an infringement notice is not an admission of guilt and iiNet chief regulatory officer
Steve Dalby said in a statement to SmartCompany it is
committed to upholding Australian Consumer Law.
ACCC warns online
businesses are more likely
to be scammed: 10 ways
to protect your business
"When advised by the regulator that our interpretation of
'prominence' was not adequate, we immediately took steps
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/telecommunications/056138-iinet-coughs-up-102-000-as-accc-slaps-telco-s-naked-rear-end.html[21/06/2013 5:06:00 PM]
Go
sponsored links
iiNet pay ACCC infringement notice for misleading advertising
to rectify the advertisement in question.
Rent-a-car company cops
fine for misleading
advertising
ACCC continues crusade
against misleading doorto-door sales tactics
ACCC report shows
scammers cost $93 million
last year: Five lessons for
your business
"Although there are no specific guidelines in the law
outlining what is adequate prominence, we have a
comprehensive compliance program in place to help us
meet this continuing challenge," he says.
The ACCC has been particularly active in the area of
misleading advertising recently and earlier this week the
former operator of a rent-a-car company was fined
$30,000 for not including compulsory add-ons in its
advertised daily vehicle hire costs.
ACCC deputy chair Michael Schaper told SmartCompany
misleading advertising, particularly regarding the "full and
honest disclosure of prices", is a priority area for the ACCC.
"There have been several occasions where we have taken
action. Over the last two or three years we have looked at telcos and airlines in particular.
"The law is pretty clear about it and for us the issue is about misleading consumers and also
a firm being responsible for the final price," he says.
Schaper says it's not just consumers the ACCC is concerned with; it also aims to protect the
competitive business environment.
"It's making sure all businesses are competing on a level playing field," he says.
Hall and Wilcox partner Sally Scott told SmartCompany companies need to consider how
their advertisements will be interpreted by consumers.
"iiNet's ad was on the back of a bus. Although someone might spend some time looking at
the ad if they are parked behind the bus in a car, others would only see the ad fleetingly.
"The variety of ways in which an ad is viewed need to be taken into account in determining
how prominently to feature the total minimum price," she says.
Scott says when reviewing an ad, business should assume it will be analysed by the ACCC.
"They should keep in mind that ignorance or carelessness will be no excuse. If an ad is
misleading or falls foul of the pricing provisions, then they can still get caught," she says.
Alistair Little of TressCox Lawyers says while this is the first instance of a publicly-listed
company paying an infringement notice, there have been many cases where infringement
notices have been rejected and the issue pursued in court.
"If you don't agree to pay the amount, the ACCC is free to launch proceedings and the
maximum penalty for this is $1.1 million per breach.
"In this case, had it gone to court and the ACCC succeeded, it [the money paid] could have
been 10 times the cost and then there are also the legal fees. Companies have to weigh up
the odds, pay the infringement notice or roll the dice and see what happens," he says.
Tien Tzuo’s $50 million a year
subscription for success
2013’s Hot 30 Under 30
Lisa Ho folds, as
administrators are unable to
find a buyer for the iconic
brand
Collapses "flying through a
million miles an hour" as
plumbing business with $4
million turnover folds
Little say the ACCC will be pleased with this result since one of the watchdog's goals is to
educate and this demonstrates to other businesses that sometimes paying the infringement
notice is the best option, even for publicly-listed companies.
A grand tour of economic risks to
Australia
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/telecommunications/056138-iinet-coughs-up-102-000-as-accc-slaps-telco-s-naked-rear-end.html[21/06/2013 5:06:00 PM]