ACCC letter to SOCOG

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has written to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.

The text of the letter to SOCOG is attached.


RE: Sydney Olympics public ticket offer

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the Commission) is concerned that conduct engaged in by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), in relation to the public ticket offer for the forthcoming Sydney Olympic Games, may have contravened provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the TPA).

Specifically, the Commission is concerned that SOCOG may have contravened sections 52, 56 and 58 of the TPA. Section 52 of the TPA prohibits conduct by business which is misleading or deceptive or which is likely to mislead or deceive. Generally sellers are required to tell the truth or refrain from giving an untruthful impression.

Section 56 of the TPA generally provides that goods or services must not be advertised at a specified price if the seller is or should have been reasonably aware that it would not be able to supply reasonable quantities at that price for a reasonable period.

Section 58 of the TPA generally provides that a corporation shall not in trade or commerce accept payment for goods or services where at the time of acceptance there are reasonable grounds, of which the corporation is aware or ought reasonably to be aware, for believing that the corporation will not be able to supply the goods or services within the period specified by the corporation.

On the information before me, it appears that only a limited number of tickets were made generally available in the public offer to Australian consumers and that, for some events, only a very small number of seats were released for public subscription.

I have not seen any evidence that SOCOG informed consumers that significantly less than the total number of seats were available for certain Olympic events despite the fact that consumers who sought tickets were required to pay the full cost of their first choice selection whether they were successful in securing tickets or not.

Further, I am concerned that some people may have secured tickets for what appears to be their third choice when, given the significantly small likelihood of securing tickets for many of the more popular sessions, their first and second choices were not real choices in the circumstances.

I understand that moneys taken by SOCOG, from consumers who did not secure tickets of their choice, will be refunded after the completion of the Olympics unless consumers agree to donate the moneys to SOCOG, use the money to attend other sessions or specifically request a refund.

The Commission has not formed a concluded view on whether SOCOG has contravened provisions of the Act. However it is concerned that by its failure to advise consumers that a significant proportion of seating at certain popular sessions was not available in the public ticket offer, combined with the positive representations made, SOCOG may have given the wrong overall impression to many consumers. An example of such positive representations in the public ticket offer document entitled Order your Olympic Games tickets now is ... this is a terrific opportunity to get the tickets you want. Better still, it gives every Australian an equal chance of getting them (page 2).

To enable the Commission to form a concluded view, would you please advise:

• full details of SOCOGs ticket allocation policies;
• whether SOCOG was aware, prior to issuing materials advertising the public offer, that only a very restricted number of tickets was available for certain Olympic sessions;
• why, if it was so aware, SOCOG did not inform consumers that this was the case; and
• why SOCOG represented that all Australians have an equal chance of getting tickets to the Olympics sessions when there appears to be evidence to the contrary.

On the basis of information currently before it, it is the Commission believes that it would be appropriate for SOCOG to consider the following initiatives:

• public acknowledgement that SOCOG is bound by the consumer law provisions of the TPA;
• offer of immediate refunds to those consumers who secured tickets to their third preference when preferences one and two were not real choices in the circumstances and who believe that they were misled;
• establish a toll free call centre with a well publicised telephone number to deal with these issues; and
• appoint a consumer law compliance panel. Such panel to be responsible for the implementation of the remedial initiatives 1-3 above and to ensure future compliance with the consumer protection provisions of the TPA.

Please advise whether SOCOG would be prepared to undertake these initiatives. In the alternative, if SOCOG is not prepared to undertake these initiatives, please explain why you believe that they are not appropriate steps in the circumstances and indicate what action, if any, SOCOG proposes to take.

The Commission considers this matter to be of significant public interest and gravity and wishes to resolve it soon as possible. Please forward your response by 12 pm today.

You may contact Carl Buik on (02) 6243 1066 or Nigel Ridgway on (02) 6243 1070 if you have any questions in relation to this letter.

Yours sincerely

(Ms Glen Barnwell)

Professor Allan Fels

Chairman