Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JULY 2016

ACCC takes action against e-cigarette suppliers for allegedly misleading claims

DibbsBarker
Explore more from DibbsBarker

The action is a reminder to all businesses to ensure that product claims or statements are fully accurate and verifiable.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Hayley Upton
Hayley Upton
Author LinkedIn connections
Services: Competition & Consumer Law, Corporate & Commercial, Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Insurance, Intellectual Property & Technology
Industry Focus: Insurance, Life Sciences & Healthcare

What you need to know

  • The ACCC has commenced legal proceedings against two e-cigarette suppliers, alleging they made false or misleading representations and engaged in misleading conduct through statements made about their products on their websites.
  • The ACCC is alleging that the Chief Executive of one company and the Director of the other were 'knowingly concerned' in the alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law.
  • This action underscores the importance for businesses to ensure that all product claims are accurate and, particularly where health and safety issues are concerned, capable of being verified by evidence.

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

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