Dulux – hot or not?

In 2012 we saw some heavy penalties for misleading and deceptive conduct under the new Australian Consumer Law regime, and the ACCC is showing no signs of slowing down.

This time it's taking Dulux to task on its advertising of two types of paint that Dulux claimed would reduce interior temperatures, energy consumption costs and a home's carbon footprint, when compared to standard paint of the same colour.

The ACCC alleges that Dulux's claims on its website, Facebook page, print, TV and paint tins were made without reasonable grounds. In order to get off now, Dulux will have to show that the superpowers of its paint can be supported by scientific or technical evidence.

Comparative advertising is the most dangerous kind there is, because there's zero margin for error and you need to be able to back yourself if the ACCC comes knocking.

Harvey in hot water again

A year on from the 3D TV debacle the ACCC has again taken aim at 11 Harvey Norman franchises across Australia for allegedly misleading its customers about their legal rights to warranties by representing to customers that:

  • they could only get a refund if they gave notice of the defect within a certain time frame;
  • goods already covered by the manufacturer's warranty may not fall under Harvey Norman's warranty; and
  • goods below a certain price couldn't be refunded or replaced.

In all 11 cases the representations were made orally by employees of the franchisees.

The consumer guarantees under the ACL can't be excluded, modified or restricted in any way, regardless of whether a retailer or manufacturer offers additional warranties on top.

The ACCC is seeking penalties, costs, declarations and injunctions against Harvey Norman, and we reckon this one is going to sting pretty bad.

Hewlett Packard on the dodgy warranty bandwagon

We're guessing the "everyone else is doing it" excuse is just not going to fly with the ACCC. Like its competitors, Hewlett Packard is being challenged about statements on its website, which the ACCC says imply that consumers cannot return or exchange products they just purchased online.

Some of the statements under fire include that customers must have had a faulty HP product repaired multiple times before they are entitled to receive a replacement and that following the expiry of that express warranty period, HP would repair its faulty products only on the condition that customers would pay for such repairs.

If proved the breaches could set HP up for penalties of $1.1 million as well as injunctions and corrective advertising orders.

Catch of the year - Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines Cargo and Thai Airways nailed for price fixing

Asia-Pacific airlines continue to buckle as the crackdown on the global air freight cartel unravels.

Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines Cargo have been ordered (by consent) to pay a whopping $23 million in penalties for their part in the cartel activity. Singapore Airlines Cargo attempted to fix rates for meat exports going to US and Australian troops stationed in the Middle East. Cathay Pacific gave effect to price understandings, relating to fuel and security surcharges for airfreight services between Singapore and Australia AND attempted to fix the price, with Qantas, for airfreight services between Hong Kong and Australia.

Thai Airways is being ordered to cough up $7.5 million for its involvement in setting fuel surcharges between 2001 and 2005 and customs fees between 2004 and 2005.

The last airlines standing are Air New Zealand and Garuda, who are continuing to deny everything notwithstanding that a total of 13 airlines have now caved and paid a total of $98.5 million in fines for taking part in the global air-freight cartel.

We do not disclaim anything about this article. We're quite proud of it really.