Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 NOVEMBER 2006

Trade Practices Newsletter

Late in 2005, GM Holden Limited used a high profile advertising campaign headlined "You pay what we pay" which claimed to allow the general public to receive the same benefits as Holden employees in purchasing cars. The advertising included fine print referring to options, accessories and dealer delivery fees, which Holden considered limited the offer to the base price of vehicles.

AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law

Originally published June, 2006

Late in 2005, GM Holden Limited used a high profile advertising campaign headlined "You pay what we pay" which claimed to allow the general public to receive the same benefits as Holden employees in purchasing cars. The advertising included fine print referring to options, accessories and dealer delivery fees, which Holden considered limited the offer to the base price of vehicles.

The ACCC did not agree because the price paid by Holden employees included discounts on factory fitted options and accessories and a discounted dealer delivery fee and other special discounts in particular types of vehicles which in some cases meant that a Holden employee would pay nearly $5,000 less than a member of the public taking advantage of the offer. The ACCC’s view was that the statement "You pay what we pay" was so powerful and prominent that the fine print did not undo the message it conveyed to consumers.

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.

See more popular content from