Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 MAY 2009

The New ´Clarity In Pricing´ Law

DLA Piper Australia
Explore more from DLA Piper Australia

On 25 May 2009, the Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in Pricing) Act 2008 (Cth) comes into effect making the use of wording like this to describe prices a possible criminal offence, unless the total price of the goods or services is displayed equally prominently as a single figure.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Simon Uthmeyer
Simon Uthmeyer
Fleur Gibbons
Fleur Gibbons
Geoff Taperell
Geoff Taperell
  • 'Just 20 easy payments of $19.95'.
  • 'Only $100 plus GST and delivery'.
  • '$24.95 (15% surcharge applies on public holidays)'.

On 25 May 2009, the Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in Pricing) Act 2008 (Cth) comes into effect making the use of wording like this to describe prices a possible criminal offence, unless the total price of the goods or services is displayed equally prominently as a single figure.

The Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in Pricing) Act 2008 (Cth) has introduced a new rule for 'component pricing' by amending section 53C and section 75AZF of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

The new rule requires that, if businesses choose to represent parts of the price for particular goods and services, they must also specify equally prominently as a single figure the total price for the good or service. There are, however, some major exceptions to the new rule as explained in this update.

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

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