Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 FEBRUARY 2020

$160,000 penalty for falsely representing the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)

Bryks Lawyers
Explore more from Bryks Lawyers

The ACCC is committed to cracking down on businesses that mislead consumers as to their remedies pursuant to the ACL.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Dorota Bryks
Dorota Bryks
Author LinkedIn connections

In the decision of ACCC v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1456, the Federal Court has penalised LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (LG) $160,000 for falsely representing the Australian Consumer Law as set out in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL). This follows the Court's finding that LG breached sections 18 and 29(1)(m) of the ACL by making false representations to two consumers regarding their rights to remedies under the consumer guarantees in the ACL. This decision reflects the outcome in ACCC v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 797, where Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd (Jetstar) was ordered to pay $1.95 million for breaching the same sections of the ACL.

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

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

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

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

Unfair Contract Terms Penalties And The Updated UCT Regime: What Your Business Needs To Know

Australian businesses face dramatically increased penalties for competition and consumer law breaches, with corporate fines now reaching $50 million and individual penalties rising to $2.5 million. The unfair contract terms regime has been strengthened with new pecuniary penalties applying for the first time, creating urgent compliance obligations for businesses using standard form contracts. Companies that have not yet audited their contracts against these expanded obligations are now operating at signific
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Coleman Greig Lawyers
Coleman Greig Lawyers