Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 APRIL 2017

Warning for foreign-based businesses: ignore Australias consumer laws at your peril

DibbsBarker
Explore more from DibbsBarker

If the ACCC considers a breach of the ACL has occurred, it is prepared to take action against foreign-based businesses.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Hayley Upton
Hayley Upton
Author LinkedIn connections
Services: Competition & Consumer Law, Insurance

What you need to know

  • The Federal Court of Australia recently ordered a US-based online game retailer to pay a penalty of $3 million for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations to Australian consumers, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
  • The decision helpfully canvasses the types of factors that may be taken into account in determining whether a foreign-based business is engaging in conduct in Australia, such that it is caught by the provisions of the ACL.
  • The orders imposed by the Federal Court in this case demonstrate that overseas online distributors that conduct business in Australia may face significant penalties if they do not understand and comply with their ACL obligations.

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
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