Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 APRIL 2009

Nothing To Be Proud Of: Misleading Price Comparisons

Clayton Utz
Explore more from Clayton Utz

Dual pricing involving “was” and “now” price comparisons held to be misleading and deceptive where products not sold at “was” price just before markdown.

AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Jocelyn Kellam
Jocelyn Kellam
Author LinkedIn connections

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prouds Jewellers Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 75

  • Dual pricing involving "was" and "now" price comparisons held to be misleading and deceptive where products not sold at "was" price just before markdown.
  • While there can be no precision about the length of the anterior period during which the products were offered at the "was" price, it must be a period of substance and two months were thought to be sufficient.

Ever wondered how genuine the discounts offered by jewellery chains are? ACCC contends this common method of promotion in the industry is misleading and deceptive. In these proceedings, the ACCC successfully alleged that Prouds had contravened sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Australia Moves To Ban Unfair Non-competes, No-poach Agreements, And Wage-fixing Arrangements

The Australian government is consulting on legislation that would treat certain employment-related restrictive covenants and inter-business labor market agreements as cartel conduct, while banning other clauses outright. The proposed bill extends Australia's cartel framework to no-poach and wage-fixing provisions between any employers, and prohibits non-compete clauses for most employees, with severe penalties for non-compliance including fines and potential jail time for individuals.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
A&O Shearman
A&O Shearman
Article

Merger Reform Update: Critical Amendments To Australia’s Merger Regime Passed By Parliament

Australia's Parliament has passed critical amendments to the country's new merger regime, replacing automatic voiding of non-notified acquisitions with a court-supervised model and clarifying control exemptions for minority investments. The changes also introduce greater flexibility for stale clearances, though questions remain about whether further reforms are needed to address the regime's underlying complexity and conservative thresholds.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Article

Australia’s Merger Regime Changes Again: Parliament Fine-tunes New M&A Rules

Australia's Parliament has passed significant amendments to the country's merger regime, less than a year after its introduction. The changes address practical concerns around mandatory merger notifications, providing greater flexibility for minority investments, reducing risks from inadvertent notification failures, and allowing extensions for delayed transactions. How will these refinements impact dealmakers navigating Australia's interventionist competition framework?
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Article

Key Refinements To Streamline Australia's Merger Control Regime Passed Into Law: Threshold For Control Increased, Removal Of Voiding Provisions And Changes To "Stale" Notification Timelines

Australia's mandatory merger control regime undergoes significant refinement through new legislation that addresses practical challenges businesses have faced since its 2026 introduction. The amendments fundamentally reshape how control and associate relationships are assessed, what happens when acquisitions aren't properly notified, and how parties can manage completion timelines for approved mergers.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

Attempt Is Enough: Record Personal Penalty Signals ACCC’s Zero Tolerance For Cartel Conduct

The Federal Court has imposed a record $1 million personal fine on an executive for attempting to induce competitors into cartel arrangements in the oil and gas services industry, despite all five attempts failing. The Court also issued a non-indemnification order preventing the executive from using insurance or company funds to pay the penalty, marking a significant escalation in competition law enforcement.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Article

Competition And Consumer Law Round-Up

This edition of the K&L Gates Competition and Consumer Law Round-Up examines recent enforcement actions by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, including greenwashing allegations, misleading pricing investigations, and record penalties for horticulture code breaches. The newsletter also covers significant merger reviews, authorisations for industry collaborations, and emerging regulatory developments affecting digital platforms and supply chain disruptions.
AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law
K&L Gates
K&L Gates